Designing algorithms for distributed systems with partially synchronized clocks

Chaudhuri, S.K.; Gawlick, Rainer; Lynch, Nancy

doi:10.1145/164051.164068

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a first major diversion from previous works [2,3,5,9,12] addressing these particular cost measures is that we show bounds on them that hold for each specific execution of the system, while bounds established in previous work on the same cost measures hold only for the worst execution. Recent research work in distributed computing theory has addressed bounds that hold for each specific execution in the context of the clock synchronization [1,13] and connection management [8,11] problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…In this work, we continue the study of the impact of timing assumptions on the cost of supporting linearizability in distributed systems; this study has been initiated by Attiya and Welch [2], and continued further by Mavronicolas and Roth [12], Chaudhuri et al [3], Friedman [5], and Kosa [9]. We consider a distributed system that introduces non-negligible timing uncertainty in two significant ways: first, in the synchronization with respect to real time of each individual process, and, second, in the communication among different processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Following previous work [2,3,5,9,12], we consider a model consisting of a collection of application programs running concurrently and communicating through virtual shared memory, which consists of a collection of read/write objects. These programs are running in a distributed system consisting of a collection of processes located at the nodes of a communication network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second major diversion from previous related work [2,3,5,9,12] is with respect to assumptions on message delays; all that work has considered the relatively simple case where there are lower and upper bounds on message delays. Under this assumption, linearizable implementations of shared memory objects have been designed [3,5,12], whose efficiency depends critically on the existence of tight lower and upper bounds on message delays.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under this assumption, linearizable implementations of shared memory objects have been designed [3,5,12], whose efficiency depends critically on the existence of tight lower and upper bounds on message delays. This assumption, however, may not always apply, since it is often the case that there do not exist tight lower and upper bounds on message delays, while there is some other relevant information about the delays.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Linearizability in the Presence of Drifting Clocks and Under Different Delay Assumptions

Eleftheriou¹,

Mavronicolas

1999

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The cost of using message-passing to implement linearizable read/write objects for shared memory multiprocessors with drifting clocks is studied. We take as cost measures the response times for performing read and write operations in distributed implementations of virtual shared memory consisting of such objects. A collection of necessary conditions on these response times are presented for a large family of assumptions on the network delays. The assumptions include the common one of lower and upper bounds on delays, and bounds on the difference between delays in opposite directions. In addition, we consider broadcast networks, where each message sent from one node arrives at all other nodes at approximately the same time. The necessary conditions are stated in the form of "gaps" on the values that the response times may attain in any arbitrary execution of the system; the ends of the gap intervals depend solely on the delays in a particular execution, and on certain fixed parameters of the system that express each specific delay assumptions. The proofs of these necessary conditions are comprehensive and modular; they consist of two major components. The first component is independent of any particular type of delay assumptions; it constructs a "counter-example" execution, which respects the delay assumptions only if it is not linearizable. The second component must be tailored for each specific delay assumption; it derives necessary conditions for any linearizable implementation by requiring that the "counter-example" execution does not respect the specific delay assumptions. Our results highlight inherent limitations on the best possible cost for each specific execution of a linearizable implementation. Moreover, our results imply lower bounds on the worst possible such costs as well; interestingly, for the last two assumptions on mesage delays, these worst-case lower bounds are products of the drifting factor of the clocks and the delay uncertainty inherent for the specific assumption.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Linearizability in the Presence of Drifting Clocks and Under Different Delay Assumptions

Eleftheriou¹,

Mavronicolas

1999

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Simulation techniques for proving properties of real-time systems

Lynch

1994

A Decade of Concurrency Reflections and Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formalizing and Implementing Distributed Ledger Objects

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the hype about blockchains and distributed ledgers, formal abstractions of these objects are scarce 1 . To face this issue, in this paper we provide a proper formulation of a distributed ledger object. In brief, we define a ledger object as a sequence of records, and we provide the operations and the properties that such an object should support. Implementation of a ledger object on top of multiple (possibly geographically dispersed) computing devices gives rise to the distributed ledger object. In contrast to the centralized object, distribution allows operations to be applied concurrently on the ledger, introducing challenges on the consistency of the ledger in each participant. We provide the definitions of three well known consistency guarantees in terms of the operations supported by the ledger object:(1) atomic consistency (linearizability), (2) sequential consistency, and (3) eventual consistency. We then provide implementations of distributed ledgers on asynchronous message passing crash-prone systems using an Atomic Broadcast service, and show that they provide eventual, sequential or atomic consistency semantics respectively. We conclude with a variation of the ledger -the validated ledger -which requires that each record in the ledger satisfies a particular validation rule.1. if π is a VL.get p () operation, then the response event of π returns V ,

show abstract

Designing algorithms for distributed systems with partially synchronized clocks

Cited by 12 publications

References 13 publications

Linearizability in the Presence of Drifting Clocks and Under Different Delay Assumptions

Linearizability in the Presence of Drifting Clocks and Under Different Delay Assumptions

Simulation techniques for proving properties of real-time systems

Formalizing and Implementing Distributed Ledger Objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About