Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byDana Adee Modified over 2 years ago

1
N-Consensus is the Second Strongest Object for N+1 Processes Eli Gafni UCLA Petr Kuznetsov Max Planck Institute for Software Systems

2
2 Distributed shared memory Processes communicate via objects Each object is an instance of a type Type N-consensus: first N operations propose(v), v∈{0,1} return the argument of the first operation, N+1-th fails Object types can be classified by their consensus power

3
3 Consensus power Cons(T)=N iff objects of T and RW registers can implement N-consensus but not N+1-consensus N-consensus is universal in a system of N processes : can implement an object of any type [Her91]

4
4 What about N or more processes? Can objects of consensus power N “do more” than N-consensus objects? No: if an N+1-process task can be solved by deterministic objects of consensus power N, then it can also be solved by N-consensus objects ⇨ There are no objects between N- and N+1- consensus

5
5 Main results Theorem 1. Any protocol over N+1 processes using deterministic objects of consensus power N is connected. Theorem 2. Any connected protocol over N+1 processes can be emulated using N-consensus

6
6 The rest of it Definitions and tools Inseparability Theorem 1: connectivity of protocols Theorem 2: emulation Conclusions and future

7
7 Processes and protocols N+1 processes communicate via objects of consensus power N, RW registers Protocol P: a collection of deterministic automata P 1,…P N+1, assume a single initial state

8
8 Objects and synchrony Objects are atomic and deterministic: an execution of P can be seen as a sequence of process ids a state of P is a finite execution a view of Pi in x is the local state of Pi in x System is asynchronous: we consider all possible executions 2-consensus cannot be implemented using RW registers N+1-consensus cannot be implemented using N- consensus

9
9 Some tools 2-process ε-agreement task for q0 and q1 If qi goes alone, qi outputs i outputs are within ε in [0,1] (can be implemented using RW registers) N-consensus can be used to split processes in two teams, each running as a single process in a 2-process RW protocol (e.g., ε- agreement)

10
10 Inseparability States x0 and x1 of P are inseparable (x0~x1) iff some process P i cannot distinguish x0 and x1 even in an infinite execution Pi goes through the same sequence of views in e0 and e1 x1x0 e1e0

11
11 Inseparably connected protocols P is inseparably connected iff for each state x of P, the set G(x) of N+1 immediate descendants of x is transitively inseparable x1x1 x2x2 xNxN x N+1 ~ ~~~ … There is a path of inseparable states between any two states in G(x) … x

12
12 Connectivity and consensus power Theorem 1. Any protocol over N+1 processes using deterministic objects of consensus power N is connected Proof sketch: suppose some G(x) is ~ disconnected each execution extending x reveals the component of G(x) we can solve consensus using x and P (use determinism here)

13
13 Emulation of connected protocols Let P be connected Then we can emulate it using N-consensus! Emulation: Processes periodically output views of P Safety: All output views are compatible with an execution of P Liveness: at least one active process makes progress (outputs infinitely many views of P)

14
14 Emulation invariants Each process maintains a local estimate of the “current” state of P Asynchronous phases, at the end of each phase: There are at most two different state estimates, and they are inseparable At least one participant outputs a new view All views output so far are compatible with both state estimates

15
15 Phase description Processes split in two teams q0 and q1 Each qi elects a member to promote: proposes a new “next” state x i and a new view v i q0 and q1 runs ε-agreement and map the results to vertices of the non-separating path connecting x 0 and x 1

16
16 Look in the future: x 0 ~x 1 Go along inseparable executions until a confusing view v

17
17 Look in the future: x 0 and x 1 are not inseparable But their parents x 0 ’ and x 1 ’ are – concatenate the paths

18
18 Choosing the next state: safety ε=Ω(1/N): the decided vertices are neighbors Neighboring states are inseparable Each view is compatible with neighboring states: safety is guaranteed!

19
19 Joining a team: liveness In every phase, a process: Try to agree on the system state using N- consensus If succeeded, join team q0 If failed (only if N came earlier)– join q1 ≤N processes participate ⇨ q1 is empty Only a participant obtains a new view: liveness is guaranteed!

20
20 A corollary that matters Let P be any protocol that solves a task M A non-blocking emulation of P is also wait-free: every active process makes progress Every N+1-process task that can be solved by objects of consensus power N can also be solved by N-consensus objects

21
21 Summary Inseparability (a general connectivity) Emulation of any connected protocol In a system of N+1 processes, there is no object between N- and N+1-consensus

22
22 Related questions Can objects of consensus power N be implemented by N-consensus objects? Common2 class: is queue in it? [Afek et al. 93,…] How to emulate a protocol P that uses objects of two types, each of consensus power N Robustness [Jay93,…] Non-determinism?

23
23 Thank you!

24
24 Deterministic objects Q, set of states O, set of operations R, set of responses σ, Q x O → Q x R, sequential specification RW-register: a read returns the most recent written value N-consensus: first N agree on a proposed value, N+1-th fails

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

Is 1 different from 12? Eli Gafni UCLA Eli Gafni UCLA.

Is 1 different from 12? Eli Gafni UCLA Eli Gafni UCLA.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google