Using Time Instead of Timeout for Fault-Tolerant Distributed Systems.
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The Byzantine Generals Problem
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
PODS '83 Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems
Bounds on the time for parallel RAM's to compute simple functions
STOC '82 Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Polynomial algorithms for multiple processor agreement
STOC '82 Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Bounds on information exchange for Byzantine Agreement
PODC '82 Proceedings of the first ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Transaction commit in a realistic fault model
PODC '86 Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Optimistic concurrency control for abstract data types
PODC '86 Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Optimistic concurrency control for abstract data types
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review
The overhead of locking (and commit) protocols in distributed databases
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
Transaction commitment at minimal communication cost
PODS '87 Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
A knowledge-theoretic analysis of atomic commitment protocols
PODS '87 Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
Experimental analysis of layered Ethernet software
ACM '87 Proceedings of the 1987 Fall Joint Computer Conference on Exploring technology: today and tomorrow
Commitment in a partitioned distributed database
SIGMOD '88 Proceedings of the 1988 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data
A hundred impossibility proofs for distributed computing
Proceedings of the eighth annual ACM Symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Analysis of transaction management performance
SOSP '89 Proceedings of the twelfth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles
Apologizing versus asking permission: optimistic concurrency control for abstract data types
ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)
Are wait-free algorithms fast?
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Distributed transactions for reliable systems
Proceedings of the tenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles
Checkpointing and rollback-recovery for distributed systems
ACM '86 Proceedings of 1986 ACM Fall joint computer conference
On the complexity of commit protocols
PODS '85 Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems
Dictatorial Transaction Processing: Atomic Commitment Without Veto Right
Distributed and Parallel Databases
A simple proof of the uniform consensus synchronous lower bound
Information Processing Letters
A Low-Latency Non-blocking Commit Service
DISC '01 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing
Hundreds of impossibility results for distributed computing
Distributed Computing - Papers in celebration of the 20th anniversary of PODC
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
A commitment protocol orchestrates the execution of a distributed transaction, allowing each participant to “vote” on the transaction and then applying a pre-specified rule to decide the outcome (commit or abort). A nonblocking commitment protocol is able to correctly terminate a transaction at all operational participants in the presence of any number of benign processor failures. Herein, we derive strong lower bounds for both nonblocking protocols and their less fault-tolerant blocking counterparts. Results on message complexity are both surprising and encouraging: the message complexities of the two classes of protocols are identical. Results on time complexity were less encouraging: nonblocking protocols are approximately 50% more expensive. However, we show how to overlap nonblocking executions of interfering transactions and thereby reduce their extra cost.