F.B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2), pages 145--154, 1984.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....there are many classes of possible processor failures in a distributed system. Those achieving most attention in the literature are: Fail stop failures. In response to a failure, the component changes to a state that permits other components to detect that a failure has occurred, and then stops [50]. Byzantine failures. The component can exhibit arbitrary and malicious behavior, perhaps involving collusion with other faulty components [34] Figure 2.3: Causally related messages. 16 Byzantine failures are the most disruptive, since they produce output despite the failure. A system which ....

Schneider, Fred: "Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors", ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 2 (2), 1984, pp. 145-154.

....where ,theindex of p[ is equal to m.rsn. The state interval p[0] is defined to be the interval of states of p from its initial state to the state immediately before the delivery of the first message. We further assume that: ffl Processes fail independently according to the fail stop model [19]# ffl The fixed set of processes that belong to the system is known by all of these processes# ffl Channels are point to point, FIFO, and fail byintermittently losing messages. 3 Specification of Causal Message Logging With the assumption that processes are piecewise deterministic, the only ....

F. B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145--154, May 1984.

....of messages sent in the reliable broadcast of a single m the message overhead of the broadcast protocol. For flooding, the message overhead is between one and two times the number of edges in the superimposed graph. The most common graph that is superimposed is a spanning tree (for example, [10, 22]) Spanning trees are attractive when one wishes to minimize the number of messages: in failure free runs, each processor receives exactly one message per broadcast and so the message overhead is jV j;1. Their drawback is that when failures occur, a new spanning tree needs to be computed and ....

Fred B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(1984), pp. 145--154.

....the only source of non determinism for the rest of this dissertation. However, the results of this dissertation can be easily extended in principle to arbitrary types of non deterministic events. 10 transiently losing messages. ffl Processes fail independently according to the fail stop model [Sch84] In this model, processes fail by halting, and the fact that a process has failed is eventually detected by all non faulty processes. ffl Each process knows the identities of the fixed set of processes comprsing the system. ffl Stable storage, a system utility used to atomically and reliably ....

Fred B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing failstop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145-- 154, May 1984.

....where , the index of p[ is equal to m.rsn. The state interval p[0] is defined to be the interval of states of p from its initial state to the state immediately before the delivery of the first message. We further assume that: ffl Processes fail independently according to the failstop model [16]; ffl There exists common knowledge on the identity of the fixed set of processes that belong to the system; ffl Channels are point to point, FIFO, and fail by intermittently losing messages. 3 Specification With the assumption that processes are piecewise deterministic, the only ....

Fred B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145--154, May 1984.

....derive an early order version of the protocol which has an improved performance in the absence of failures. This improvement is however achieved with an increase in message cost. This early order protocol would be particularly useful for message ordering within a (3 processor) fail stop node [Sch84] where detection of a single internal failure causes the node to stop functioning and therefore message ordering is to be achieved mostly in a failure free environment. The protocols presented here are an improved and more complete version of [Brasil95b] The paper is organised as follows: Section ....

F.B. Schneider, "Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors," ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 2(2), pp. 145-154, May 1984.

....packets. Once a request TCP packet has been acknowledged to the client, it must not be lost. All reply TCP packets sent to the client must form consistent, correct replies to prior requests. We assume that only a single server host at a time may fail. We further assume that hosts are fail stop [24]. Hence, host failure is detected using standard techniques, such as periodic heartbeats. Techniques for dealing with failure modes other than fail stop are important but are beyond the scope of this paper. We also assume that the local area network connecting the two servers as well as the ....

F. B. Schneider, "Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing FailStop Processors," ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(2), pp. 145-154 (May 1984).

....implementation of another target or base system. The relation was defined independently of replication, in an abstract way, which enabled a uniform treatment both of implementation techniques different from replication, and of different fault assumptions for replication (e.g. fail stop faults [13], or byzantine faults [9] Although originally introduced to model replicated processing, implementation relations can be seen as an effective technique for a broader range of distributed systems, with a potential of being able to deal with fault tolerance paradigms other than replication, and ....

Schneider, F.B.: Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems 2(2), 145-154 (1984).

.... facility is available, or equivalently a recovered process is restarted as a completely new process; in the second, recovery is feasible and a stable storage mechanism is available, 4 The term fail silent distinguishes this kind of failure from an even milder one, the fail stop failure [Schneider 1984], which guarantees that a failed process stops sending messages, that its failure is detectable from any correct process, and that a predefined portion of its memory will remain unaffected by the failure and accessible to any other process. From the algorithmic viewpoint, the effect of process ....

F. B. Schneider, "Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors", ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2 (2), pp.145-54, May 1984.

....was designed to provide higher availability and, in particular, to tolerate crash failures during execution of the protocol. However, despite the increased performance cost due to the added prepare tocommit phase, the Three Phase Commit protocol assumes an idealized fail stop failure model [Sch84] where participants fail by crashing and failure detection is immediate and perfectly accurate) and may block in a real setting due to network partitions or inaccurate failure detection (see Figure 4.2) Because of its limitations (in particular, lacking fail stop, Three Phase Commit is no ....

Fred B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2:2, pp.145-154, May 1984.

....consistent with some failure model being assumed. Failure models commonly found in the distributed systems literature include: Failstop. A processor fails by halting. Once it halts, the processor remains in that state. The fact that a processor has failed is detectable by other processors [S84]. Crash. A processor fails by halting. Once it halts, the processor remains in that state. The fact that a processor has failed may not be detectable by other processors [F83] Crash Link. A processor fails by halting. Once it halts, the processor remains in that state. A link fails by losing ....

Schneider, F.B. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM TOCS 2, 2 (May 1984), 145-154. -8-

....component can exhibit arbitrary and malicious behavior, perhaps involving collusion with other faulty components [Lamport et al. 82] Fail stop Failures. In response to a failure, the component changes to a state that permits other components to detect that a failure has occurred and then stops [Schneider 84] Byzantine failures can be the most disruptive, and there is anecdotal evidence that such failures do occur in practice. Allowing Byzantine failures is the weakest possible assumption that could be made about the effects of a failure. Since a design based on assumptions about the behavior of ....

.... locks and distributed semaphores [Schneider 80] input output guards for CSP and conditional Ada SELECT statements [Schneider 82] and in the design of a failstop processor approximation using processors that can exhibit arbitrary behavior in response to a failure [Schlichting Schneider 83] Schneider 84] A stable storage implementation described in [Bernstein 85] exploits properties of a synchronous broadcast network to avoid explicit protocols for Agreement and Order and employs Transmitting a Default Vote (as described in 7) The notion of D common storage, suggested in [Cristian et al. 85] ....

Schneider, F.B. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM TOCS 2, 2 (May 1984), 145-154.

No context found.

F.B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2), pages 145--154, 1984.

No context found.

F. B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145-154, May 1984.

No context found.

F.B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(2), 1984.

No context found.

F. B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145-154, 1984.

No context found.

F. B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145-154, May 1984.

No context found.

F. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors. Transactions on Computer Systems, May 1984.

No context found.

F. B. Schneider, "Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors," ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(2), pp. 145-154 (May 1984).

No context found.

F.B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2), pages 145--154, 1984.

No context found.

F. B. Schneider. Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors. ACM Trans. on Computer Systems, 2(2):145--154, 1984.

No context found.

F. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors. Transactions on Computer Systems, May 1984.

No context found.

F. B. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(2):145--154, May 1984.

No context found.

F.B. Schneider, "Byzantine generals in action: Implementing fail-stop processors," ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 145--154, 1984.

No context found.

F. Schneider. Byzantine Generals in Action: Implementing Fail-Stop Processors. ACM TOCS, 2(2), May 1984.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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