Improved bully election algorithm in distributed systems

Arghavani, Abbas; Ahmadi, E.; Haghighat, Abolfazl Toroghi

doi:10.1109/icimu.2011.6122724

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are many variants of agreement protocols with small differences in their decision objectives. For instance, the participants may wish to decide on a single proposal [Lamport 1998[Lamport , 2006Mao et al 2008], an infinite sequence of proposals [Chandra et al 2007;Ongaro and Ousterhout 2014], or a finite set of leaders amongst themselves [Arghavani et al 2011;Garcia-Molina 1982]. Despite these variations, any correct agreement protocol is characterized by the following three guarantees [Lynch 1996]: (i) agreementÐall participants decide on the same set of proposals, (ii) validityÐevery proposal in the decided set of proposals must have been proposed by a participant, and (iii) terminationÐall participants eventually decide.…”

Section: Quicksilver Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

QuickSilver: modeling and parameterized verification for distributed agreement-based systems

Jaber

Wagner

Jacobs

et al. 2021

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last decade has sparked several valiant efforts in deductive verification of distributed agreement protocols such as consensus and leader election. Oddly, there have been far fewer verification efforts that go beyond the core protocols and target applications that are built on top of agreement protocols. This is unfortunate, as agreement-based distributed services such as data stores, locks, and ledgers are ubiquitous and potentially permit modular, scalable verification approaches that mimic their modular design. We address this need for verification of distributed agreement-based systems through our novel modeling and verification framework, QuickSilver, that is not only modular, but also fully automated. The key enabling feature of QuickSilver is our encoding of abstractions of verified agreement protocols that facilitates modular, decidable, and scalable automated verification. We demonstrate the potential of QuickSilver by modeling and efficiently verifying a series of tricky case studies, adapted from real-world applications, such as a data store, a lock service, a surveillance system, a pathfinding algorithm for mobile robots, and more.

show abstract

Section: Quicksilver Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

QuickSilver: modeling and parameterized verification for distributed agreement-based systems

Jaber

Wagner

Jacobs

et al. 2021

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…bully election algorithm in distributed systems presented by Arghavani in 2011, 27 (3) the modified bully election algorithm in distributed systems presented by Kordafshari et al, 28 (4) the ring algorithm, and (5) the modified ring algorithm. The original bully algorithm requires that every process knows the identity of every other process, with N 2 communication complexity.…”

Section: Leader Election Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usually, the asset with the lowest unique ID number is selected as the leader. According to Balhara and Khanna, 25 the five most prominent leader election algorithms are (1) the bully algorithm presented by Gracia-Molina in 1982, 26 (2) the improved bully election algorithm in distributed systems presented by Arghavani in 2011, 27 (3) the modified bully election algorithm in distributed systems presented by Kordafshari et al, 28 (4) the ring algorithm, and (5) the modified ring algorithm. The original bully algorithm requires that every process knows the identity of every other process, with N 2 communication complexity.…”

Section: Communication Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive leader election for control of tactical microgrids

Jane

Goldsmith

Parker

et al. 2020

Journal of Defense Modeling & Simulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An adaptive leader election protocol (LEP) was developed to control both stationary and mobile generation assets (generators and vehicles), achieved using an energy management system (EMS). The LEP algorithm adapts to changes in both topology and the asset inventory using the longevity criterion (available fuel, future availability), used to compute a desirability index, for election of a leader. The leader then implemented an optimal power flow EMS to ensure sufficient and optimal power flow within the electrical network was maintained in the presence of a complex electrical load, regardless of the asset mix. Both the LEP and EMS algorithms were distributed to the generation assets. This capability supports stationary grid-tied, vehicle-to-grid, and mobile vehicle-to-vehicle-based applications. Simulated case studies illustrate that the adaptive LEP was resistive to deterministic events (maintenance, available fuel), which could yield an inoperable asset, compromising grid stability. The use of the adaptive LEP resulted in a communication complexity of at most [Formula: see text]; in contrast, a fully connected communication system requires [Formula: see text] communications, limiting the scalability of the network. The EMS was optimized, resulting in a computationally efficient and scalable optimal power flow algorithm that can be extended for more general stationary or mobile energy networks.

show abstract

“…Bully algorithm [5] and Ring algorithm [48] are among the most used algorithms for solving the consensus problem. A hugely popular algorithm is the Paxos algorithm proposed by Lamport [30].…”

Section: Consensus Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilient Reference Monitor for Distributed Access Control via Moving Target Defense

Mulamba

Ray

2017

Data and Applications Security and Privacy XXXI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective access control is dependent not only on the existence of strong policies but also on ensuring that the access control enforcement subsystem is adequately protected. Protecting this subsystem has not been adequately addressed in the literature. In general, it is assumed to be implemented as a reference monitor in a trusted computing base (TCB) that is tamper-proof. However, in distributed access control, ensuring TCB security kernel to be tamper proof is not always feasible. It needs to be implemented in software and on platforms that can potentially have vulnerabilities. We posit that allowing a very limited opportunity to the attacker to enumerate exploitable vulnerabilities in the access control subsystem can considerably facilitate its protection. Towards this end we propose a moving target defense framework for access control in a distributed environment. In this framework, access control is provided by cooperation of several distributed modules that materialize randomly, announce their services, enforce access control and then disappear to be replaced by another module randomly. As a result, the attacker does not know which process can be targeted to compromise the access control system.

show abstract

Improved bully election algorithm in distributed systems

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

QuickSilver: modeling and parameterized verification for distributed agreement-based systems

QuickSilver: modeling and parameterized verification for distributed agreement-based systems

Adaptive leader election for control of tactical microgrids

Resilient Reference Monitor for Distributed Access Control via Moving Target Defense

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About