Connection Management Without Retaining Information

Attiya, Hagit; Welch, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1006/inco.1995.1165

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Later, Fekete et al [1993] showed that no Data Link protocol could work correctly under these assumptions. Attiya et al [1995] proved a similar result regarding Transport protocols. In this paper, we investigate the power of crash failures for protocols other than Data Link and Transport protocols.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The fault span of crash failures

Varghese

Jayaram

2000

J. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A crashing network protocol is an asynchronous protocol whose memory does not survive crashes. We show that a crashing network protocol that works over unreliable links can be driven to arbitrary global states, where each node is in a state reached in some (possibly different) execution, and each link has an arbitrary mixture of packets sent in (possibly different) executions. Our theorem considerably generalizes an earlier result, due to Fekete et al., which states that there is no correct crashing Data Link Protocol. For example, we prove that there is no correct crashing protocol for token passing and for many other resource allocation protocols such as k-exclusion, and the drinking and dining philosophers problems. We further characterize the reachable states caused by crash failures using reliable non-FIFO and reliable FIFO links. We show that with reliable non-FIFO links any acyclic subset of nodes and links can be driven to arbitrary states. We show that with reliable FIFO links, only nodes can be driven to arbitrary states. Overall, we show a strict hierarchy in terms of the set of states reachable by crash failures in the three link models.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…For example, Attiya et al [1995] introduce a grace period between crashes. They also introduce a third way to change the assumptions by assuming that links have bounded capacity.…”

Section: Designing Correct Protocols That Are Resilient To Crashesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fault span of crash failures

Varghese

Jayaram

2000

J. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Self-stabilizing β-synchronizer We use a message passing version of the β-synchronizer that appears in [6]. The fact that we use the synchronizer in a message-passing system requires the use of a self-stabilizing end-to-end protocol (see e.g., [2,6,11]). …”

Section: Hypertree Global Maintenancementioning

confidence: 99%

HyperTree for self-stabilizing peer-to-peer systems

Kat

2007

Distrib. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer-to-peer systems are prone to faults; Therefore, it is extremely important to design peer-to-peer systems that automatically regain consistency or, in other words, are self-stabilizing. In order to achieve the above, we present a deterministic structure that defines the entire (IP) pointers structure among the machines, for every n machines; i.e., defines the next hop for the insert, delete, and search procedures of the peer-to-peer system. Thus, the consistency of the system is easily defined, monitored, verified, and repaired. We present the HyperTree (distributed) structure, which supports the peer-to-peer procedures while ensuring that the outdegree and the in-degree (the number of outgoing/ incoming pointers) are b log b n where n is the actual number of machines and b is an integer parameter greater than 1. Moreover, the HyperTree ensures that the maximal number of hops involved in each procedure is bounded by log b n. A self-stabilizing peer-to-peer distributed algorithm based on the HyperTree is presented.

show abstract

“…Since R takes no steps in pump ; k and no packets are lost, S 1 ; : : : S k are in transit after pump ; k sender ; k. 5. Clearly none of the network assumptions satis ed by are violated; HA1 is satis ed because of the Dis events at the beginning of ; HA2 is vacuously true because the schedule is not fair packets are in transit.…”

Section: Pumpingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I.e., the network delivers in nitely many packets in each direction. 5 NA3. For every pre x of the schedule and X 2 f S; Rg:…”

Section: Na2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Connection management without retaining information

Attiya

Welch

Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. AbstractManaging a connection between two hosts in a network is an important service to provide in order to make the network useful for many applications. The two main subproblems are the management of serial incarnations of a connection and the transfer of messages within an incarnation. This paper investigates whether it is necessary for connection management protocols to retain state information across node crashes and between incarnations. The following results were obtained:When information is not retained across node crashes, incarnation management i s not possible at all. When information is not retained between incarnations, incarnation management i s possible if the network is FIFO and not possible if the network is non-FIFO. When information is not retained across node crashes, message transfer can be accomplished in networks that lose packets if the network is FIFO and the protocol is allowe d a v ariable length grace period after a crash during which it need not deliver messages. However, message transfer cannot be accomplished if the network is non-FIFO or the grace period allowed is xed. When information is not retained across node crashes, message transfer can be accomplished in networks that do not lose packets if the network is FIFO or the protocol need not be FIFO. Message transfer is not possible when the network is non-FIFO and the protocol must be FIFO. If the network has bounded capacity, then message transfer is possible without using stable storage. This indicates, somewhat surprisingly, that there is a data link initialization protocol that can withstand node crashes without stable storage.

show abstract

Connection Management Without Retaining Information

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

The fault span of crash failures

The fault span of crash failures

HyperTree for self-stabilizing peer-to-peer systems

Connection management without retaining information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About