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
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Failure detectors and the wait-free hierarchy (extended abstract)
Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The weakest failure detector for solving consensus
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
ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS)
Information Processing Letters
Fault-tolerant broadcasts and related problems
Distributed systems (2nd Ed.)
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
Conditions on input vectors for consensus solvability in asynchronous distributed systems
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
The Information Structure of Indulgent Consensus
IEEE Transactions on Computers
Early consensus in an asynchronous system with a weak failure detector
Distributed Computing
The combined power of conditions and failure detectors to solve asynchronous set agreement
Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Tight bounds for k-set agreement with limited-scope failure detectors
Distributed Computing - Special issue: DISC 03
(Almost) all objects are universal in message passing systems
DISC'05 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Distributed Computing
Partition approach to failure detectors for k-set agreement
Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Failure detectors are schedulers
Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Sharing is harder than agreeing
Proceedings of the twenty-seventh ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
The Iterated Restricted Immediate Snapshot Model
COCOON '08 Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on Computing and Combinatorics
In search of the holy grail: looking for the weakest failure detector for wait-free set agreement
OPODIS'06 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Principles of Distributed Systems
LATIN'10 Proceedings of the 9th Latin American conference on Theoretical Informatics
Weakening failure detectors for k-set agreement via the partition approach
DISC'07 Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Distributed Computing
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Solving agreement problems (such as consensus and k-set agreement) in asynchronous distributed systems prone to process failures has been shown to be impossible. To circumvent this impossibility, distributed oracles (also called unreliable failure detectors) have been introduced. A failure detector provides information on failures, and a failure detector class is defined by a set of abstract properties that encapsulate (and hide) synchrony assumptions. Some failure detector classes have been shown to be the weakest to solve some agreement problems (e.g., Ω is the weakest class of failure detectors that allow solving the consensus problem in asynchronous systems where a majority of processes do not crash).This paper considers several failure detector classes and focuses on their additivity or their irreducibility. It mainly investigates two families of failure detector classes (denoted ◊ Sx and ◊ φy, 0≤ x, y ≤ n), shows that they can be "added" to provide a failure detector of the class Ωz (a generalization of Ω). It also characterizes the power of such an "addition", namely, ◊ Sx + ◊ φy ➝ Ωz ⇔ x+y+zt+1, where t is the maximum number of processes that can crash in a run. As an example, the paper shows that, while ◊ St allows solving 2-set agreement (and not consensus) and ◊ φ1 allows solving t-set agreement (but not (t-1)-set agreement), their "addition" allows solving consensus. More generally, the paper studies the failure detector classes ◊ Sx, ◊ φy and Ωz, and shows which reductions among these classes are possible and which are not. The paper presents also an Ωk-based k-set agreement protocol. In that sense, it can be seen as a step toward the characterization of the weakest failure detector that allows solving the k-set agreement problem.