Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The Weak Byzantine Generals Problem
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The Byzantine Generals Problem
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Byzantine generals in action: implementing fail-stop processors
ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS)
Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system
Communications of the ACM
Is byzantine agreement useful in a distributed database?
PODS '84 Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
PODS '83 Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systems
PODC '83 Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Efficient commit protocols for the tree of processes model of distributed transactions
PODC '83 Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Patterns of Communication in Consensus Protocols
Patterns of Communication in Consensus Protocols
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
Agreement Problems in Fault-Tolerant Distributed Systems
SOFSEM '01 Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Informatics Piestany: Theory and Practice of Informatics
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper presents a taxonomy of consensus problems, based on their safeness and liveness properties, and then explores the relationships among the different problems in the taxonomy. Each problem is characterized by the communication patterns of protocols solving it. This then becomes the basis for a new notion of reducibility between problems. Formally, problem P1 reduces to problem P2 whenever each set of communication patterns of a protocol for P2 is the set of communication patterns of a protocol for P1. This means intuitively that any protocol for P2 can solve P1 by relabeling local states and padding messages. Consequently, the message complexity (measured in number of messages) of P1 is not greater than the message complexity of P2. Our method of characterizing and comparing problems is the principal contribution of this paper.