Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

On the robustness of h r m

Preliminary version

  • Regular Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Distributed Algorithms (WDAG 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1151))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We introduce an N-process deterministic concurrent object for N ≥ 3 processes, called the conditional consensus object. This object, denoted as W, is hard-wired in the sense that each process P can access it using a single fixed port (though P can use different ports in different copies of W). We prove that W satisfies the following properties:

  • There is no consensus protocol for three processes which uses many shared registers and many copies of W (and does not use any other object); but

  • There is a consensus protocol for N processes which uses one copy of W and ( N3 ) copies of CO3, where CO3 is the standard consensus object for three processes.

This implies that the hierarchy h r m is not robust for deterministic hardwired objects.

This work was supported by the France-Israel cooperative project: Graph Theoretical Methods in Distributed Computing 4474-2-93.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E. Borowsky, E. Gafni, and Y. Afek. Consensus power makes (some) sense! In Proc. 13th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. O. Biran, S. Moran, and S. Zaks. A combinatorial characterization of the distributed 1-solvable tasks. Journal of Algorithm 11, pages 420–440, 1990. A preliminary versions appeared in Proc. 7th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Bazzi, G. Neiger, and G. Peterson. On the use of registers in achieving wait-free consensus. In Proc. 13th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. Chandra, V. Hadzilacos, P. Jayanti, and S. Toueg. The h r m hiererachy is not robust. Manuscript, August 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. Chandra, V. Hadzilacos, P. Jayanti, and S. Toueg. Wait-freedom vs. t-resiliency and the robustness of wait-free hierarchies. In Proc. 13th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. Chor, A. Israeli, and M. Li. On processor coordination using asynchronous hardware. In Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 86–97, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Cori and S. Moran. Exotic behaviour of consensus numbers. In Proceedings of 8-th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, September 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374–382, April 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M. Herlihy. Impossibility results for asynchronous Pram. In Proc. 3rd ACM Symp. on Algorithms and Architectures, pages 327–336, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. P. Herlihy. Impossibility results for asynchronous Pram. In Proc. 3rd ACM Symp. on Algorithms and Architectures, pages 327–336, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Jayanti. On the robustness of herlihy hierarchy. In Proc. 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Jayanti. Wait-free computing. In Proc. 9th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, September 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. M. Loui and H. Abu-Amara. Memory requirements for agreement among unreliable asynchronous processes. Advances in Computing Research, 4:163–183, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. L. Lamport. On interprocess communication, parts I and II. Distributed Computing, 1(2):77–101, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. R. Lubitch and S. Moran. Closed schedulers: A novel technique for analyzing distributed protocols. Distributed Computing, 8(4):203–210, 1995. An extended preliminary version appeared in “Closed Schedulers: Constructions and Applications to Consensus Protocols”, Proceedings of 6-th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, 1992 and in TR #796, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion, January 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. Peterson, R. Bazzi, and G. Neiger. A gap theorem for consensus types. In Proc. 13th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing, August 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ophir Rachman. Anomalies in the wait-free hierarchy. In Proc. 8th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Taubenfeld, S. Katz, and S. Moran. Impossibility results in the presence of multiple faulty processes. Information and Computation, 1994. Preliminary version appeared in 9th FCT-TCS Conference, Bangalore, India, December, 1989, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 405 (eds.:C.E. Veni Madhavan), Springer Verlag 1989, pages 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Özalp Babaoğlu Keith Marzullo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Moran, S., Rappoport, L. (1996). On the robustness of h r m . In: Babaoğlu, Ö., Marzullo, K. (eds) Distributed Algorithms. WDAG 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1151. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61769-8_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61769-8_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61769-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70679-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics