Lattice Agreement in Message Passing Systems

Authors Xiong Zheng, Changyong Hu, Vijay K. Garg



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.DISC.2018.41.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.5 MB
  • 17 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Xiong Zheng
  • University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Changyong Hu
  • University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Vijay K. Garg
  • University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Xiong Zheng, Changyong Hu, and Vijay K. Garg. Lattice Agreement in Message Passing Systems. In 32nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2018). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 121, pp. 41:1-41:17, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2018)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2018.41

Abstract

This paper studies the lattice agreement problem and the generalized lattice agreement problem in distributed message passing systems. In the lattice agreement problem, given input values from a lattice, processes have to non-trivially decide output values that lie on a chain. We consider the lattice agreement problem in both synchronous and asynchronous systems. For synchronous lattice agreement, we present two algorithms which run in log(f) and min{O(log^2 h(L)), O(log^2 f)} rounds, respectively, where h(L) denotes the height of the input sublattice L, f < n is the number of crash failures the system can tolerate, and n is the number of processes in the system. These algorithms have significant better round complexity than previously known algorithms. The algorithm by Attiya et al. [Attiya et al. DISC, 1995] takes log(n) synchronous rounds, and the algorithm by Mavronicolasa [Mavronicolasa, 2018] takes min{O(h(L)), O(sqrt(f))} rounds. For asynchronous lattice agreement, we propose an algorithm which has time complexity of 2*min{h(L), f + 1} message delays which improves on the previously known time complexity of O(n) message delays. The generalized lattice agreement problem defined by Faleiro et al in [Faleiro et al. PODC, 2012] is a generalization of the lattice agreement problem where it is applied for the replicated state machine. We propose an algorithm which guarantees liveness when a majority of the processes are correct in asynchronous systems. Our algorithm requires min{O(h(L)), O(f)} units of time in the worst case which is better than O(n) units of time required by the algorithm in [Faleiro et al. PODC, 2012].

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
Keywords
  • Lattice Agreement
  • Replicated State Machine
  • Consensus

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Yehuda Afek, Hagit Attiya, Danny Dolev, Eli Gafni, Michael Merritt, and Nir Shavit. Atomic snapshots of shared memory. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 40(4):873-890, 1993. Google Scholar
  2. Hagit Attiya, Maurice Herlihy, and Ophir Rachman. Atomic snapshots using lattice agreement. Distributed Computing, 8(3):121-132, 1995. Google Scholar
  3. Hagit Attiya and Ophir Rachman. Atomic snapshots in 𝒪 (n log n) operations. SIAM Journal on Computing, 27(2):319-340, 1998. Google Scholar
  4. Hagit Attiya and Jennifer Welch. Distributed computing: fundamentals, simulations, and advanced topics, volume 19. John Wiley &Sons, 2004. Google Scholar
  5. Carole Delporte-Gallet, Hugues Fauconnier, Sergio Rajsbaum, and Michel Raynal. Implementing snapshot objects on top of crash-prone asynchronous message-passing systems. In International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing, pages 341-355. Springer, 2016. Google Scholar
  6. Danny Dolev and H Raymond Strong. Authenticated algorithms for byzantine agreement. SIAM Journal on Computing, 12(4):656-666, 1983. Google Scholar
  7. Jose M Faleiro, Sriram Rajamani, Kaushik Rajan, G Ramalingam, and Kapil Vaswani. Generalized lattice agreement. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 125-134. ACM, 2012. Google Scholar
  8. Michael J Fischer, Nancy A Lynch, and Michael S Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 32(2):374-382, 1985. Google Scholar
  9. Maurice P Herlihy and Jeannette M Wing. Linearizability: A correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 12(3):463-492, 1990. Google Scholar
  10. Leslie Lamport. The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 16(2):133-169, 1998. Google Scholar
  11. Leslie Lamport et al. Paxos made simple. ACM Sigact News, 32(4):18-25, 2001. Google Scholar
  12. Marios Mavronicolas. A bound on the rounds to reach lattice agreement, 2000. URL: http://www.cs.ucy.ac.cy/~mavronic/pdf/lattice.pdf.
  13. Michel Raynal. Concurrent programming: algorithms, principles, and foundations. Springer Science &Business Media, 2012. Google Scholar
  14. Fred B Schneider. Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: A tutorial. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 22(4):299-319, 1990. Google Scholar
  15. Marc Shapiro, Nuno Preguiça, Carlos Baquero, and Marek Zawirski. Conflict-free replicated data types. In Symposium on Self-Stabilizing Systems, pages 386-400. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  16. Marc Shapiro, Nuno Preguiça, Carlos Baquero, and Marek Zawirski. Convergent and commutative replicated data types. Bulletin-European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 104:67-88, 2011. Google Scholar
  17. Andrew S Tanenbaum and Maarten Van Steen. Distributed systems: principles and paradigms. Prentice-Hall, 2007. Google Scholar
  18. Gadi Taubenfeld. Synchronization algorithms and concurrent programming. Pearson Education, 2006. Google Scholar