Fairness of N-party synchronization and its implementation in a distributed environment

Wu, Cheng; Bochmann, Gregor von; Yao, Ming

doi:10.1007/3-540-57271-6_42

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, we consider fairness assuming professors always eventually switch to the waiting status. In this context, we define fairness on professors (also called weak fairness, [6]) as follows.…”

Section: Definition 2 (Maximal Concurrency)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once all processes of a hyperedge are looking and agree on that hyperedge, they are all ready to start their discussion. To this end, a process changes its status from looking to waiting 6 to show that it is waiting for the committee to convene (action Step 31 ). A meeting of the committee convenes when all its members change their status to waiting.…”

Section: Remarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the existing algorithms that solve the committee coordination problem [2,3,4,5,6,7] overlook properties that are vital in practice. Examples include satisfying fairness or reaching maximum concurrency among convened committees and/or professors in a meeting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Snap-stabilizing committee coordination

Bonakdarpour

Devismes

Petit

2016

Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the committee coordination problem, a committee consists of a set of professors and committee meetings are synchronized, so that each professor participates in at most one committee meeting at a time. In this paper, we propose two snap-stabilizing distributed algorithms for the committee coordination. Snap-stabilization is a versatile property which requires a distributed algorithm to efficiently tolerate transient faults. Indeed, after a finite number of such faults, a snap-stabilizing algorithm immediately operates correctly, without any external intervention. We design snapstabilizing committee coordination algorithms enriched with some desirable properties related to concurrency, (weak) fairness, and a stronger synchronization mechanism called 2-Phase Discussion. In our setting, all processes are identical and each process has a unique identifier. The existing work in the literature has shown that (1) in general, fairness cannot be achieved in committee coordination, and (2) it becomes feasible if each professor waits for meetings infinitely often. Nevertheless, we show that even under this latter assumption, it is impossible to implement a fair solution that allows maximal concurrency. Hence, we propose two orthogonal snap-stabilizing algorithms, each satisfying 2-phase discussion, and either maximal concurrency or fairness. The algorithm that implements fairness requires that every professor waits for meetings infinitely often. Moreover, for this algorithm, we introduce and evaluate a new efficiency criterion called the degree of fair concurrency. This criterion shows that even if it does not satisfy maximal concurrency, our snap-stabilizing fair algorithm still allows a high level of concurrency.

show abstract

Section: Definition 2 (Maximal Concurrency)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Remarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Snap-stabilizing committee coordination

Bonakdarpour

Devismes

Petit

2016

Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Solutions to the committee coordination problem mostly focus on the three aforementioned properties [2], [3], [8], [19], [21], [23]. In the seminal work by Chandy and Misra [8], the committee coordination problem is reduced to the dining or drinking philosophers problems [7].…”

Section: A Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this model, Kumar proposes an algorithm that solves the committee coordination problem with professor fairness using multiple tokens, each representing one committee. Based on the same assumption, several other committee coordination algorithms that satisfy fairness can be found in [23].…”

Section: A Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snap-Stabilizing Committee Coordination

Bonakdarpour

Devismes

Petit

2011

2011 IEEE International Parallel &Amp; Distributed Processing Symposium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this paper, we propose two snap-stabilizing distributed algorithms for the committee coordination problem. In this problem, any committee consists of a set of processes and committee meetings are synchronized, so that each process participates in at most one committee meeting at any time. Snap-stabilization is a versatile technique allowing to design algorithms that efficiently tolerate transient faults. Indeed, after a finite number of such faults (e.g. memory corruptions, message losses, etc), a snap-stabilizing algorithm immediately operates correctly, without any external intervention.We design snap-stabilizing committee coordination algorithms enriched with some desirable properties related to concurrency, (weak) fairness, and a stronger synchronization mechanism called 2-Phase Discussion Time. From previous papers, we know that (1) in the general case, (weak) fairness cannot be achieved in the committee coordination, (2) however, it becomes feasible provided that each process waits for meetings infinitely often. Nevertheless, we show that even under this latter assumption, it is impossible to implement a fair solution that allows the best level of concurrency, so called the maximal concurrency. Hence, we propose two orthogonal snapstabilizing algorithms each satisfying, 2-phase discussion time, and either maximal concurrency or fairness. The algorithm implementing fairness requires that every process waits for meetings infinitely often. Moreover, for this algorithm, we introduce and evaluate a new efficiency criterion called the degree of fair concurrency. This criterion shows that even if it does not satisfy maximal concurrency, our snap-stabilizing fair algorithm still allows a high level of concurrency.

show abstract

Fairness of N-party synchronization and its implementation in a distributed environment

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Snap-stabilizing committee coordination

Snap-stabilizing committee coordination

Snap-Stabilizing Committee Coordination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About