Consistency and recovery control for replicated files

Davčev, Danco; Burkhard, Walter A.

doi:10.1145/323647.323637

Cited by 79 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Early work on replication with dynamic membership could violate safety in such cases [7,22,9] (as shown in [27]). Many later works have rectified this problem by using a centralized sequencer or some variant of consensus to agree on the order of reconfigurations (see discussion of related work in Section 2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic atomic storage without consensus

Aguilera

Keidar

Malkhi

et al. 2011

J. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the emulation of atomic read/write (R/W) storage in dynamic asynchronous message passing systems. In static settings, it is well known that atomic R/W storage can be implemented in a fault-tolerant manner even if the system is completely asynchronous, whereas consensus is not solvable. In contrast, all existing emulations of atomic storage in dynamic systems rely on consensus or stronger primitives, leading to a popular belief that dynamic R/W storage is unattainable without consensus.In this paper, we specify the problem of dynamic atomic read/write storage in terms of the interface available to the users of such storage. We discover that, perhaps surprisingly, dynamic R/W storage is solvable in a completely asynchronous system: we present DynaStore, an algorithm that solves this problem. Our result implies that atomic R/W storage is in fact easier than consensus, even in dynamic systems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic atomic storage without consensus

Aguilera

Keidar

Malkhi

et al. 2011

J. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two potential avenues for further work are replacing Raft static voting protocol by a dynamic voting protocol [5] and allowing failed witnesses to be promptly regenerated on spare sites [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At present, we do not want to alter in any way the logic of the Raft algorithm, which excludes the use of dynamic voting algorithms [5].…”

Section: Reducing Raft Energy Footprintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the Energy Footprint of a Distributed Consensus Algorithm

Pâris

Long

2015

2015 11th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The Raft consensus algorithm is a new distributed consensus algorithm that is both easier to understand and more straightforward to implement than the older Paxos algorithm. Its major limitation is its high energy footprint. As it relies on majority consensus voting for deciding when to commit an update, Raft requires five participants to protect against two simultaneous failures. We propose two methods for reducing this huge energy footprint. Our first proposal consists of adjusting Raft quorums in a way that would allow updates to proceed with as few as two servers while requiring a larger quorum for electing a new leader. Our second proposal consists of replacing one or two of the five Raft servers with witnesses, that is, lightweight servers that maintain the same metadata as other servers but hold no data and can therefore run on very low-power hosts. We show that these substitutions have little impact on the cluster availability but very different impacts on the risks of incurring a data loss.

show abstract

“…Examples of this approach include [Alsb76, Birm85b, Birm85a, Birr82, Giff79, Herl86, Lamp86,Oki88b,Oki88a] In the second category, the semantics of the application have been exploited to solve the ordering problem. In [Dani83], semantic information has been used to implement a replicated directory, while in [Davc85], the authors use semantic information to implement replicated files. Our approach differs from these two in that we maximize the concurrency by dividing different operations into op-groups, and our approach generalizes easily beyond .files and directories.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consul: a communication substrate for fault-tolerant distributed programs

Mishra

1993

Distrib. Syst. Engng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consistency and recovery control for replicated files

Cited by 79 publications

References 0 publications

Dynamic atomic storage without consensus

Dynamic atomic storage without consensus

Reducing the Energy Footprint of a Distributed Consensus Algorithm

Consul: a communication substrate for fault-tolerant distributed programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About