From Self- to Snap- Stabilization

Cournier, Alain; Devismes, Stéphane; Villain, Vincent

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-49823-0_14

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, since BreakingIn is a property of any self-stabilizing protocol of the same class, we can use our method to snap-stabilize such selfstabilizing protocols Cournier et al [2006a]. Surprisingly, in addition to snapstabilization, the method enhances in many cases some other characteristics of the initial self-stabilizing protocol: The time needed for the correct execution (the first execution in the snap-stabilizing version) is drastically reduced and/or the fairness of the daemon can be weakened.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This approach is a generalization of the method we propose inCournier et al [2006a] to transform some self-stabilizing protocols into snap-stabilizing ones.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Light enabling snap-stabilization of fundamental protocols

Cournier

Devismes

Villain

2009

ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we show that some fundamental self-and snap-stabilizing wave protocols (e.g., token circulation, PIF, etc.) implicitly assume a very light property that we call BreakingIn. We prove that BreakingIn is strictly induced by self-and snap-stabilization. Combined with a transformer, BreakingIn allows to easily turn the non-fault-tolerant versions of those protocols into snap-stabilizing versions. Unlike the previous solutions, the transformed protocols are very efficient and work at least with the same daemon as the initial versions extended to satisfy BreakingIn. Finally, we show how to use an additional property of the transformer to design snap-stabilizing extensions of those fundamental protocols like Mutual Exclusion.

show abstract

“…The second definition of snap-stabilization describes a snapstabilizing program as immediately satisfying an external invocation (such as waves in [6], [7], [8]). Such approach may lead to specifications with sequence-based safety and liveness properties.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideal Stabilization

Nesterenko

Tixeuil²

2011

2011 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWe define and explore the concept of ideal stabilization. The program is ideally stabilizing if its every state is legitimate. Ideal stabilization allows the specification designer to prescribe with arbitrary degree of precision not only the fault-free program behavior but also its recovery operation. Specifications may or may not mention all possible states. We identify approaches to designing ideal stabilization to both kinds of specifications. For the first kind, we state the necessary condition for an ideally stabilizing solution. On the basis of this condition we prove that there is no ideally stabilizing solution to the leader election problem. We illustrate the utility of the concept by providing examples of well-known programs and proving them ideally stabilizing. Specifically, we prove ideal stabilization of the conflict manager, the alternator, the propagation of information with feedback and the alternating bit protocol

show abstract

“…In [22], the proposed protocol transforms almost all non self-stabilizing protocols to selfstabilizing one. The method proposed in [8] transforms a self-stabilizing wave protocol with a unique initiator to a snap-stabilizing one. In [7], authors propose a snap-stabilizing version of four fundamental protocols: reset, snapshot, leader election, termination detection, based on a snap-stabilizing PIF (Propagation of Information with Feedback) algorithm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Self- to Self-stabilizing with Service Guarantee 1-hop Weight-Based Clustering

Johnen

Mekhaldi

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We propose a transformer building a silent self-stabilizing with service guarantee 1-hop clustering protocol T P of an input silent self-stabilizing 1-hop clustering protocol P. From an arbitrary configuration, T P reaches a safe configuration in at most 3 rounds, where the following useful minimal service is provided: "each node belongs to a 1-hop cluster having an effective leader". During stabilization of T P, the minimal service is preserved, so the clustering structure is available throughout the entire network. The minimal service is also maintained despite the occurrences of some external disruptions, called highly tolerated disruptions, denoted HT D. T P reaches a terminal (also legitimate) configuration in at most 4 * SP rounds where SP is the stabilization time of P protocol. Moreover, T P requires only 2 bits per node more than P.

show abstract

From Self- to Snap- Stabilization

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Light enabling snap-stabilization of fundamental protocols

Ideal Stabilization

From Self- to Self-stabilizing with Service Guarantee 1-hop Weight-Based Clustering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About