O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and View- Synchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", Technical Report UBLCS95 -18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....services is difficult, because these services can be complicated, and because different such services provide different guarantees about safety, performance, and fault tolerance. Examples of specifications for group membership services and view oriented group communication services appear in [3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 32, 35, 36]. In [17] we presented a specification, vs, for a view oriented group communication service. This specification consists of a simple state machine expressing safety requirements, plus a timed trace property expressing conditional performance and fault tolerance requirements. We used this ....

O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and View- Synchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", Technical Report UBLCS95 -18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.

....active (see, e.g. 47, 14, 16] In particular, there has been a large amount of work on developing specifications for partitionable group services. Some specifications deal just with membership and views [34, 51] while others also cover message services (ordering and reliability properties) [7, 8, 9, 18, 23, 28, 33, 45, 44]. The specifications are often complicated, many are difficult to understand, and in some cases seem to be ambiguous. It is not clear how to tell whether a specification is sufficient for a given application. It is not even clear how to tell whether a specification is implementable at all; ....

....Schneider in [52] see also the references therein) An alternative approach is to send all operations (not just updates) through the totally ordered broadcast service; this approach constructs an atomic shared memory. 4 1. Self inclusion: a processor is always a member of its local view (Relacs [7], Transis [23] Horus [28] Newtop [25] 2. Local monotonicity : local views are installed at any processor in the increasing order of view identifiers. This is satisfied by most group communication implementations [23, 5, 28, 8, 25, 42] 3. Initial view : all communication events in VS must ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and ViewSynchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", Technical Report UBLCS95 -18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.

....active (see, e.g. 36, 9, 10] In particular, there has been a large amount of work on developing specifications for partitionable group services. Some specifications deal just with membership and views [26, 40] while others also cover message services (ordering and reliability properties) [5, 6, 7, 12, 17, 22, 25, 34, 33]. The specifications are often complicated, many are difficult to understand, and in some cases seem to be ambiguous. It is not clear how to tell whether a specification is sufficient for a given application. It is not even clear how to tell whether a specification is implementable at all; ....

....require that a processor learn of all the views of which it is a member. 3. VS does not require any relationship among the membership of concurrent views held by different processors. Stronger specifications demand that these views be either disjoint or identical [7] or either disjoint or subsets [5]. 4. VS does not require consensus on whether a message is delivered. Many other specifications for group communication, including [5, 7, 17, 22, 34] insist on delivery at every processor in the intersection of the current view and a successor view 4 . We allow each member to receive a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and ViewSynchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", Technical Report UBLCS95 -18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.

....is still active (see, e.g. 26, 7] In particular, there has been a large amount of work on developing specifications for partitionable group services. Some specifications deal just with membership and views [17, 29] while others also cover message services (ordering and reliability properties) [24, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16]. These specifications are all complicated, many are difficult to understand, and some seem to be ambiguous. It is not clear how to tell whether a specification is sufficient for a given application. It is not even clear how to tell whether a specification is implementable at all; impossibility ....

....require that a processor learn of all the views of which it is a member. 3. VS does not require any relationship among the membership of concurrent views held by different processors. Stronger specifications demand that these views be either disjoint or identical [5] or either disjoint or subsets [4]. 4. VS does not require consensus on whether a message is delivered. Many other specifications for group communication, including [4, 5, 12, 15, 24] insist on delivery at every processor in the intersection of the current view and a successor view. We allow each member to receive a different ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and View-Synchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", TR UBLCS-95-18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.

....because these services can be quite complicated, and because there are many different such services, with different guarantees about safety, performance, and fault tolerance. Some examples of specifications for group membership services and view oriented group communication services appear in [5, 6, 8, 11, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 32, 34, 37, 38]. In [20] we presented a new specification, which we called vs, for a view oriented group communication service. This specification consists of a simple state machine expressing safety requirements, plus a timed trace property expressing conditional performance fault tolerance requirements. This ....

O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and ViewSynchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", Technical Report UBLCS-95-18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.

....is still active (see, e.g. 26, 7] In particular, there has been a large amount of work on developing specifications for partitionable group services. Some specifications deal just with membership and views [17, 29] while others also cover message services (ordering and reliability properties) [24, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16]. These specifications are all complicated, many are difficult to understand, and some seem to be ambiguous. It is not clear how to tell whether a specification is sufficient for a given application. It is not even clear how to tell whether a specification is implementable at all; impossibility ....

....require that a processor learn of all the views of which it is a member. 3. VS does not require any relationship among the membership of concurrent views held by different processors. Stronger specifications demand that these views be either disjoint or identical [5] or either disjoint or subsets [4]. 4. VS does not require consensus on whether a message is delivered. Many other specifications for group communication, including [4, 5, 12, 15, 24] insist on delivery at every processor in the intersection of the current view and a successor view. We allow each member to receive a different ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

O. Babaoglu, R. Davoli and A. Montresor, "Failure Detectors, Group Membership and View-Synchronous Communication in Partitionable Asynchronous Systems", Technical Report UBLCS-95-18, Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Italy.

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