M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable Wansbrough, Norrish, Sewell, and Serjantov networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3-30, June 1999.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....from the inherent difficulty of determining whether a process has actually crashed or is only very slow . Failure detectors can be seen as one oracle per process. An oracle provides a list of processes that it currently suspects to have crashed. Many fault tolerant algorithms have been proposed [10, 7, 3] based on unreliable failure detectors, but there are few papers about implementing of these detectors [12] In this paper we investigate how to implement and dynamically adapt failure detectors. We propose a new implementation of an Eventually Perfect ( P ) failure detector in models of partial ....

M.K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 220, 1999.

....order to ignore the complications of message re transmission and associated acknowledgment messages which might obscure the workings of a new protocol [4] But this practice can mislead unless an explicit for39 mulation is referenced for the transformation being applied. For example, according to [1], it is not possible in general to simulate reliable links and obtain a quiescent protocol by using Fair Links in the presence of benign failures. This implies that describing APSS as a protocol that uses reliable links would have constituted an over simpli cation with no guarantee that a move to ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):330, June 1999.

....are examples of agreement problems. One of the key issues when solving an agreement problem is the choice of the system model. Many system models have been proposed in the past years: synchronous models [11, 15, 16, 6] partially synchronous models [12] asynchronous models with failure detectors [9, 8, 2, 3], timed asynchronous models [10] etc. Despite the diversity of these models, almost all algorithms that have been proposed to solve agreement problems have the common point of being Crash Detection Based (CDB) We say that an algorithm is CDB if it uses some information about the status ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

....loss if sender and destination are correct) # crashed processes never recover (see Footnote 3, p. 3) We make these assumptions in order to simplify the description of the algorithms. Indeed, based on the literature, the algorithms can easily be extended to lossy channels and network partitions [1, 3], and to handle process recovery [2, 21, 26] However, this would obscure the key idea of semi passive replication by introducing unnecessary complexity. As a matter of fact, the Lazy Consensus algorithm presented in this paper satisfies a stronger property: two processes propose a value only ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999. Special issue on distributed algorithms.

....will see in the next section, consensus is not always solvable in the message omission model. However, as we now discuss, it is possible to overcome certain restricted message omission patterns. 8 Consider, for example, the case that all the communication links among correct processes are fair [ACT99], in the sense that if a message is sent on a link an in nite number of times it eventually reaches its destination. In this case, a reliable transport protocol, similar to TCP, can be implemented atop the fair lossy links by repeatedly retransmitting each message until it is known that the ....

....a message is sent on a link an in nite number of times it eventually reaches its destination. In this case, a reliable transport protocol, similar to TCP, can be implemented atop the fair lossy links by repeatedly retransmitting each message until it is known that the message reached all processes [ACT99]. Thus, one can simulate a crash failure model with fair lossy links, and any algorithm for solving consensus with crash failures, e.g. the one in the previous section, works in this model as well, as long as there is a majority of correct processes. Next, consider the case that communication ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the Heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3-30, June 1999.

.... atomic commit) are at the heart of such systems [3, 4, 14] one need to consider models that are strong enough to circumvent the impossibility result of [13] For this concern, two main approaches have been proposed: the timing based approach [11, 12, 10, 16, 9] and the failure detector approach [6, 5, 1, 2]. The first approach consists in providing processes with information about time: the resulting models are called timing based models. For example, message delays and relative processes speeds are bounded, and these bounds are known in the perfect timing based model, namely the synchronous ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

....detectors. However, they are for crash failures only. Omission and Byzantine failure detectors have also been studied recently [16, 24] There are many known di#erent implementations of failure detection mechanism. Most of them are designed specifically for solving consensus or related problems [2, 28]. Some of them are designed to be used as a foundation for building other distributed services [41] Sergent et al. gave a list of di#erent implementations of crash failure detectors [38] 14 2.5 Group Communication Another approach to reliable distributed computing is group communication, a ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

....[LFA00b] An indirect way to implement# is to first implement an eventually strong failure detector #S [CT96] and then transform it into# using the algorithms in [Chu98] But such implementations also have drawbacks. First, the known implementations of #S are either not communication efficient [CT96, ACT99, ACT00a] or they require strong system assumptions [LAF99, LFA00b] Second, the# that we get this way is not necessarily stable. To the best of our knowledge, all prior implementations of #P require that O(n 2 ) links to be eventually timely. Larrea et al. propose a communication efficient ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

....Chandra and Toueg [12] provide the first formal specification of unreliable failure detectors and show that they can be used to solve some fundamental problems in distributed computing, namely, consensus and atomic broadcast. This approach was later used and generalized in other works, e.g. [20, 16, 17, 1, 3, 2]. In all of the above works, failure detectors are specified in terms of their eventual behavior (e.g. a process that crashes is eventually suspected) Such specifications are appropriate for asynchronous systems, in which there is no timing assumption whatsoever. 1 Many applications, however, ....

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

No context found.

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable Wansbrough, Norrish, Sewell, and Serjantov networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3-30, June 1999.

No context found.

M. Aguilera, W. Chen and S. Toueg. Using the Heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

No context found.

M.K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 220, 1999.

No context found.

Aguilera, Chen, and Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 220, 1999.

No context found.

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999.

No context found.

Aguilera, M., Chen, W., Toueg, Using the heartbeat failure detectors for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitinable networks. Theoretical Comp Science, 220:3-30, 1999.

No context found.

M.K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3--30, June 1999. 44

No context found.

M. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable networks. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 220, 1999.

No context found.

M. K. Aguilera, W. Chen, and S. Toueg. Using the heartbeat failure detector for quiescent reliable communication and consensus in partitionable Wansbrough, Norrish, Sewell, and Serjantov networks. Theoretical Computer Science, 220(1):3-30, June 1999.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC