TY - JOUR
T1 - Contention-related crash failures
T2 - Definitions, agreement algorithms, and impossibility results
AU - Durand, Anaïs
AU - Raynal, Michel
AU - Taubenfeld, Gadi
N1 - DBLP License: DBLP's bibliographic metadata records provided through http://dblp.org/ are distributed under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Although the bibliographic metadata records are provided consistent with CC0 1.0 Dedication, the content described by the metadata records is not. Content may be subject to copyright, rights of privacy, rights of publicity and other restrictions.
PY - 2022/3/28
Y1 - 2022/3/28
N2 - This article explores an interplay between process crash failures and concurrency. Namely, it aims at answering the question, “Is it possible to cope with more crash failures when some number of crashes occur before some predefined contention point happened?”. These crashes are named λ-constrained crashes, where λ is the predefined contention point (known by the processes). Hence, this article considers two types of process crashes: λ-constrained crashes and classical crashes (which can occur at any time and are consequently called any-time crashes). Considering a system made up of n asynchronous processes communicating through atomic read/write registers, the article focuses on the design of two agreement-related algorithms. Assuming λ=n−1 and no any-time failure, the first algorithm solves the consensus problem in the presence of one λ-constrained crash failure, thereby circumventing the well-known FLP impossibility result. The second algorithm considers k-set agreement for k≥2. It is a k-set agreement algorithm such that λ=n−ℓ and ℓ≥k=m+f that works in the presence of up to (2m+ℓ−k) λ-constrained crashes and (f−1) any-time crashes, i.e., up to t=(2m+ℓ−k)+(f−1) process crashes. It follows that considering the timing of failures with respect to a predefined contention point enlarges the space of executions in which k-set agreement can be solved despite the combined effect of asynchrony, concurrency, and process crashes. The paper also presents agreement-related impossibility results for consensus and k-set agreement in the context of λ-constrained process crashes (with or without any-time crashes).
AB - This article explores an interplay between process crash failures and concurrency. Namely, it aims at answering the question, “Is it possible to cope with more crash failures when some number of crashes occur before some predefined contention point happened?”. These crashes are named λ-constrained crashes, where λ is the predefined contention point (known by the processes). Hence, this article considers two types of process crashes: λ-constrained crashes and classical crashes (which can occur at any time and are consequently called any-time crashes). Considering a system made up of n asynchronous processes communicating through atomic read/write registers, the article focuses on the design of two agreement-related algorithms. Assuming λ=n−1 and no any-time failure, the first algorithm solves the consensus problem in the presence of one λ-constrained crash failure, thereby circumventing the well-known FLP impossibility result. The second algorithm considers k-set agreement for k≥2. It is a k-set agreement algorithm such that λ=n−ℓ and ℓ≥k=m+f that works in the presence of up to (2m+ℓ−k) λ-constrained crashes and (f−1) any-time crashes, i.e., up to t=(2m+ℓ−k)+(f−1) process crashes. It follows that considering the timing of failures with respect to a predefined contention point enlarges the space of executions in which k-set agreement can be solved despite the combined effect of asynchrony, concurrency, and process crashes. The paper also presents agreement-related impossibility results for consensus and k-set agreement in the context of λ-constrained process crashes (with or without any-time crashes).
KW - Agreement algorithm
KW - Asynchronous system
KW - Concurrency
KW - Contention
KW - Process crash
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123681927&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.tcs.2022.01.029
DO - 10.1016/j.tcs.2022.01.029
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:85123681927
SN - 0304-3975
VL - 909
SP - 76
EP - 86
JO - Theoretical Computer Science
JF - Theoretical Computer Science
ER -