Distributed agreement in the presence of processor and communication faults
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Automatically increasing the fault-tolerance of distributed algorithms
Journal of Algorithms
A combinatorial characterization of the distributed 1-solvable tasks
Journal of Algorithms
Early stopping in Byzantine agreement
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Generalized FLP impossibility result for t-resilient asynchronous computations
STOC '93 Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
More choices allow more faults: set consensus problems in totally asynchronous systems
Information and Computation
Tight bounds on the round complexity of distributed 1-solvable tasks
Theoretical Computer Science
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Structured derivations of consensus algorithms for failure detectors
PODC '98 Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Fault-tolerant broadcasts and related problems
Distributed systems (2nd Ed.)
Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The topological structure of asynchronous computability
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
k-set agreement with limited accuracy failure detectors
Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Wait-Free k-Set Agreement is Impossible: The Topology of Public Knowledge
SIAM Journal on Computing
Tight bounds for k-set agreement
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Proceedings of the thirteenth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures
Distributed Algorithms
A simple proof of the uniform consensus synchronous lower bound
Information Processing Letters
Consensus in Synchronous Systems: A Concise Guided Tour
PRDC '02 Proceedings of the 2002 Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing
Issues of fault tolerance in concurrent computations (databases, reliability, transactions, agreement protocols, distributed computing)
Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics
Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics
Uniform consensus is harder than consensus
Journal of Algorithms
Optimal early stopping uniform consensus in synchronous systems with process omission failures
Proceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures
Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
PRDC '05 Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing
Tight bounds for k-set agreement with limited-scope failure detectors
Distributed Computing - Special issue: DISC 03
Early-stopping k-set agreement in synchronous systems prone to any number of process crashes
PaCT'05 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Parallel Computing Technologies
Hi-index | 0.01 |
The k-set agreement problem is a generalization of the consensus problem: considering a system made up of n processes where each process proposes a value, each non-faulty process has to decide a value such that a decided value is a proposed value, and no more than k different values are decided. It has recently be shown that, in the crash failure model, min$(\lfloor \frac{f}{k} \rfloor+2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)$ is a lower bound on the number of rounds for the non-faulty processes to decide (where t is an upper bound on the number of process crashes, and f, 0 ≤f ≤t, the actual number of crashes) This paper considers the k-set agreement problem in synchronous systems where up to t n /2 processes can experience general omission failures (i.e., a process can crash or omit sending or receiving messages). It first introduces a new property, called strong termination. This property is on the processes that decide. It is satisfied if, not only every non-faulty process, but any process that neither crashes nor commits receive omission failures decides. The paper then presents a k-set agreement protocol that enjoys the following features. First, it is strongly terminating (to our knowledge, it is the first agreement protocol to satisfy this property, whatever the failure model considered). Then, it is early deciding and stopping in the sense that a process that either is non-faulty or commits only send omission failures decides and halts by round min$(\lfloor \frac{f}{k} \rfloor+2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)$. To our knowledge, this is the first early deciding k-set agreement protocol for the general omission failure model. Moreover, the protocol provides also the following additional early stopping property: a process that commits receive omission failures (and does not crash) executes at most min$(\lceil \frac{f}{k} \rceil +2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)$ rounds. It is worth noticing that the protocol allows each property (strong termination vs early deciding/stopping vs early stopping) not to be obtained at the detriment of the two others The combination of the fact that min$(\lfloor \frac{f}{k} \rfloor+2,\lfloor \frac{t}{k} \rfloor +1)$ is lower bound on the number of rounds in the crash failure model, and the very existence of the proposed protocol has two very interesting consequences. First, it shows that, although general omission failure model is more severe than the crash failure model, both models have the same lower bound for the non-faulty processes to decide. Second, it shows that, in the general omission failure model, that bound applies also the processes that commit only send omission failures