Leader Election Let G = (V,E) define the network topology. Each process i has a variable L(i) that defines the leader.  i,j  V  i,j are non-faulty.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 5: Tree Constructions
Advertisements

Chapter 13 Leader Election. Breaking the symmetry in system Similar to distributed mutual exclusion problems, the first process to enter the CS can be.
UBE529 Distributed Coordination. 2 Leader Election Gerard LeLann posed the Election problem in a famous paper 1977 Many distributed systems are client.
Leader Election Breaking the symmetry in a system.
CS 542: Topics in Distributed Systems Diganta Goswami.
CS425 /CSE424/ECE428 – Distributed Systems – Fall 2011 Material derived from slides by I. Gupta, M. Harandi, J. Hou, S. Mitra, K. Nahrstedt, N. Vaidya.
CSE 486/586, Spring 2012 CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Leader Election Steve Ko Computer Sciences and Engineering University at Buffalo.
Lecture 8: Asynchronous Network Algorithms
Token-Dased DMX Algorithms n LeLann’s token ring n Suzuki-Kasami’s broadcast n Raymond’s tree.
Chapter 15 Basic Asynchronous Network Algorithms
Distributed Computing 2. Leader Election – ring network Shmuel Zaks ©
Lecture 7: Synchronous Network Algorithms
Minimum Spanning Trees
1 Algorithms and protocols for distributed systems We have defined process groups as having peer or hierarchical structure and have seen that a coordinator.
CS4231 Parallel and Distributed Algorithms AY 2006/2007 Semester 2 Lecture 7 Instructor: Haifeng YU.
Byzantine Generals Problem: Solution using signed messages.
Università degli Studi dell’Aquila Academic Year 2009/2010 Course: Algorithms for Distributed Systems Instructor: Prof. Guido Proietti Time: Monday:
1 Complexity of Network Synchronization Raeda Naamnieh.
CS 582 / CMPE 481 Distributed Systems
CPSC 668Set 2: Basic Graph Algorithms1 CPSC 668 Distributed Algorithms and Systems Spring 2008 Prof. Jennifer Welch.
CPSC 668Set 3: Leader Election in Rings1 CPSC 668 Distributed Algorithms and Systems Spring 2008 Prof. Jennifer Welch.
Computer Science Lecture 11, page 1 CS677: Distributed OS Last Class: Clock Synchronization Logical clocks Vector clocks Global state.
CS603 Process Synchronization February 11, Synchronization: Basics Problem: Shared Resources –Generally data –But could be others Approaches: –Model.
Leader Election in Rings
Coordination in Distributed Systems Lecture # 8. Coordination Anecdotes  Decentralized, no coordination  Aloha ~ 18%  Some coordinating Master  Slotted.
Composition Model and its code. bound:=bound+1.
Chapter 14 Synchronizers. Synchronizers : Introduction Simulate a synchronous network over an asynchronous underlying network Possible in the absence.
Election Algorithms and Distributed Processing Section 6.5.
Broadcast & Convergecast Downcast & Upcast
Tanenbaum & Van Steen, Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms, 2e, (c) 2007 Prentice-Hall, Inc. All rights reserved Chapter 6 Synchronization.
Why do we need models? There are many dimensions of variability in distributed systems. Examples: interprocess communication mechanisms, failure classes,
Review for Exam 2. Topics included Deadlock detection Resource and communication deadlock Graph algorithms: Routing, spanning tree, MST, leader election.
Coordination and Agreement. Topics Distributed Mutual Exclusion Leader Election.
Computer Science and Engineering Parallel and Distributed Processing CSE 8380 February 10, 2005 Session 9.
The Complexity of Distributed Algorithms. Common measures Space complexity How much space is needed per process to run an algorithm? (measured in terms.
1 Leader Election in Rings. 2 A Ring Network Sense of direction left right.
Lecture 11-1 Computer Science 425 Distributed Systems CS 425 / CSE 424 / ECE 428 Fall 2010 Indranil Gupta (Indy) September 28, 2010 Lecture 11 Leader Election.
Minimum Spanning Tree. Given a weighted graph G = (V, E), generate a spanning tree T = (V, E’) such that the sum of the weights of all the edges is minimum.
CSE 486/586, Spring 2012 CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Mutual Exclusion & Leader Election Steve Ko Computer Sciences and Engineering University.
Physical clock synchronization Question 1. Why is physical clock synchronization important? Question 2. With the price of atomic clocks or GPS coming down,
Leader Election (if we ignore the failure detection part)
DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHMS Spring 2014 Prof. Jennifer Welch Set 2: Basic Graph Algorithms 1.
1 Review Questions Define n variables, types of shared variables, message-passing, shared-memory system, system topology n program-counter/guarded command.
Hwajung Lee. Let G = (V,E) define the network topology. Each process i has a variable L(i) that defines the leader.   i,j  V  i,j are non-faulty ::
Page 1 Mutual Exclusion & Election Algorithms Paul Krzyzanowski Distributed Systems Except as otherwise noted, the content.
CSCE 668 DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHMS AND SYSTEMS Spring 2014 Prof. Jennifer Welch CSCE 668 Set 3: Leader Election in Rings 1.
Fault tolerance and related issues in distributed computing Shmuel Zaks GSSI - Feb
Fault tolerance and related issues in distributed computing Shmuel Zaks GSSI - Feb
CIS 825 Review session. P1: Assume that processes are arranged in a ring topology. Consider the following modification of the Lamport’s mutual exclusion.
Minimum Spanning Tree Given a weighted graph G = (V, E), generate a spanning tree T = (V, E’) such that the sum of the weights of all the edges is minimum.
Mutual Exclusion Algorithms. Topics r Defining mutual exclusion r A centralized approach r A distributed approach r An approach assuming an organization.
CSE 486/586 CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Leader Election Steve Ko Computer Sciences and Engineering University at Buffalo.
CSC 8420 Advanced Operating Systems Georgia State University Yi Pan Transactions are communications with ACID property: Atomicity: all or nothing Consistency:
Distributed Systems Lecture 9 Leader election 1. Previous lecture Middleware RPC and RMI – Marshalling 2.
CIS 825 Lecture 9. Minimum Spanning tree construction Each node is a subtree/fragment by itself. Select the minimum outgoing edge of the fragment Send.
CIS 825 Lecture 8. Leader Election Aim is to elect exactly one node as the leader.
Leader Election Let G = (V,E) define the network topology. Each process i has a variable L(i) that defines the leader.  i,j  V  i,j are non-faulty ::
CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Leader Election
Advanced Topics in Concurrency and Reactive Programming: Time and State Majeed Kassis.
Lecture 9: Asynchronous Network Algorithms
Leader Election (if we ignore the failure detection part)
Alternating Bit Protocol
Minimum Spanning Tree.
CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Leader Election
Lecture 8: Synchronous Network Algorithms
Physical clock synchronization
CSCE 668 DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHMS AND SYSTEMS
Leader Election Ch. 3, 4.1, 15.1, 15.2 Chien-Liang Fok 4/29/2019
Distributed Systems and Concurrency: Synchronization in Distributed Systems Majeed Kassis.
CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Leader Election
Presentation transcript:

Leader Election Let G = (V,E) define the network topology. Each process i has a variable L(i) that defines the leader.  i,j  V  i,j are non-faulty :: L(i)  V and L(i) = L(j) and L(i) is non-faulty Often reduces to maxima (or minima) finding problem. (if we ignore the failure detection part)

Leader Election Difference between mutual exclusion & leader election The similarity is in the phrase “at most one process.” But, Failure is not an issue in mutual exclusion, a new leader is elected only after the current leader fails. No fairness is necessary - it is not necessary that every aspiring process has to become a leader.

Bully algorithm (Assumes that the topology is completely connected) 1. Send election message (I want to be the leader) to processes with larger id 2. Give up your bid if a process with larger id sends a reply message (means no, you cannot be the leader). In that case, wait for the leader message (I am the leader). Otherwise elect yourself the leader and send a leader message 3. If no reply is received, then elect yourself the leader, and broadcast a leader message. 4. If you receive a reply, but later don’t receive a leader message from a process of larger id (i.e the leader-elect has crashed), then re-initiate election by sending election message.

Bully algorithm The worst-case message complexity = O(n 3 ) (This is bad) 01234N-3N-2N-1 election Node 0 sends N-1 election messagesSo, 0 starts all over again Node 1 sends N-2 election messages Node N-2 sends 1 election messages etc Finally, node N-2 will be elected leader, but before it sent the leader message, it crashed. Leader crashed

Maxima finding on a unidirectional ring Chang-Roberts algorithm. Initially all initiator processes are red. Each initiator process i sends out token {For each initiator i} do token received  j < i  skip (do nothing) token  j > i  send token ; color := black token  j = i  L(i) := i {i becomes the leader} od {Non-initiators remain black, and act as routers} do token received  send od Message complexity = O(n 2 ). Why? What are the best and the worst cases? The ids may not be nicely ordered like this

Bidirectional ring Franklin’s algorithm (round based) In each round, every process sends out probes (same as tokens) in both directions to its neighbors. Probes from higher numbered processes will knock the lower numbered processes out of competition. In each round, out of two neighbors, at least one must quit. So at least 1/2 of the current contenders will quit. Message complexity = O(n log n). Why?

Sample execution

Peterson’s algorithm initially  i : color(i) = red, alias(i) = i {program for each round and for each red process} send alias ; receive alias (N); if alias = alias (N)  I am the leader alias ≠ alias (N)  send alias(N); receive alias(NN); if alias(N) > max (alias, alias (NN))  alias:= alias (N) alias(N) < max (alias, alias (NN))  color := black fi { N(i) and NN(i) denote neighbor and neighbor’s neighbor of i }

Peterson’s algorithm Round-based. Finds maxima on a unidirectional ring using O(n log n) messages. Uses an id and an alias for each process.

Synchronizers Synchronous algorithms (round-based, where processes execute actions in lock-step synchrony) are easer to deal with than asynchronous algorithms. In each round (or clock tick), a process (1) receives messages from neighbors, (2) performs local computation (3) sends messages to ≥ 0 neighbors A synchronizer is a protocol that enables synchronous algorithms to run on an asynchronous system. synchronizer Asynchronous system Synchronous algorithm

Synchronizers “Every message sent in clock tick k must be received by the neighbors in the clock tick k.” This is not automatic - some extra effort is needed. Consider a basic Asynchronous Bounded Delay (ABD) synchronizer Start tick 0 Each process will start the simulation of a new clock tick after 2  time units, where  is the maximum propagation delay of each channel Channel delays have an upper bound  tick 0tick 1tick 2tick 3

 -synchronizers What if the propagation delay is arbitrarily large but finite? The  -synchronizer can handle this. 1.Send and receive messages for the current tick. 2.Send ack for each incoming message, and receive ack for each outgoing message 3.Send a safe message to each neighbor after sending and receiving all ack messages (then follow steps …) Simulation of each clock tick m m m ack

Complexity of  -synchronizer Message complexity M(  ) Defined as the number of messages passed around the entire network for the simulation of each clock tick. M(  ) = O(|E|) Time complexity T(  ) Defined as the number of asynchronous rounds needed for the simulation of each clock tick. T(  ) = 3 (since each process exchanges m, ack, safe)

Complexity of  -synchronizer M A = M S + T S. M(  ) T A = T S. T(  ) MESSAGE complexity of the algorithm implemented on top of the asynchronous platform Message complexity of the original synchronous algorithm Time complexity of the original synchronous algorithm in rounds TIME complexity of the algorithm implemented on top of the asynchronous platform Time complexity of the original synchronous algorithm

The  -synchronizer Form a spanning tree with any node as the root. The root initiates the simulation of each tick by sending message m(j) for each clock tick j. Each process responds with ack(j) and then with a safe(j) message along the tree edges (that represents the fact that the entire subtree under it is safe). When the root receives safe(j) from every child, it initiates the simulation of clock tick (j+1) using a next message. To compute the message complexity M(  ), note that in each simulated tick, there are m messages of the original algorithm, m acks, and (N-1) safe messages and (N-1) next messages along the tree edges. Time complexity T(  ) = depth of the tree. For a balanced tree, this is O(log N)

 -synchronizer Uses the best features of both  and  synchronizers. (What are these?) The network is viewed as a tree of clusters. Within each cluster,  -synchronizers are used, but for inter-cluster synchronization,  -synchronizer is used Preprocessing overhead for cluster formation. The number and the size of the clusters is a crucial issue in reducing the message and time complexities Cluster head