Principal features of the VOLTAN family of reliable node architectures for distributed systems

Shrivastava, Santosh K.; Ezhilchelvan, PD; Speirs, NA; Tao, S.; Tully, Alan

doi:10.1109/12.142680

Cited by 36 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our result relates to work on message-passing systems that emulate shared memory abstractions tolerant of Byzantine failures [5,17,22,26,28,29]; these systems guarantee the correctness of the emulated shared objects themselves, the question is what power do these objects provide to the correct processes that use them, in the face of corrupt processes accessing them.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tight bounds for shared memory systems accessed by Byzantine processes

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provide efficient constructions and tight bounds for shared memory systems accessed by n processes, up to t of which may exhibit Byzantine failures, in a model previously explored by Malkhi et al. [21]. We show that sticky bits are universal in the Byzantine failure model for n ≥ 3t + 1, an improvement over the previous result requiring n ≥ (2t +1)(t +1). Our result follows from a new strong A preliminary version of the results presented in this paper appeared in [23]. consensus construction that uses sticky bits and tolerates t Byzantine failures among n processes for any n ≥ 3t + 1, the best possible bound on n for strong consensus. We also present tight bounds on the efficiency of implementations of strong consensus objects from sticky bits and similar primitive objects.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tight bounds for shared memory systems accessed by Byzantine processes

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If there is a result, it waits for an identical answer from two processes (details can be seen in [14]. ).…”

Section: Structure Of the Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(i) Verify the forwarded input: p i accesses the client data from the local database and verifies encapsulated in m k ( ) [14]. As observed earlier, input verification requires disk access and is a time-consuming procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So, our problem is concerned with designing an Atomic Broadcast protocol that works despite the combined effects of the bounded lifetime , a Byzantine server process, and the client crash failures. These constraints (which come from practical considerations that aim at providing server processes with bounded storage [14]) actually define a problem that we call -constrained Atomic Broadcast. This problem is new.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Building TMR-Based Reliable Servers Despite Bounded Input Lifetimes

Ezhilchelvan¹,

Hélary

Raynal

2001

Euro-Par 2001 Parallel Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is on the construction of a server subsystem in a client While a client can fail by crashing and at least two server processes behave correctly, the third server process can behave in an arbitrary way. Moreover, the communication between clients and server processes is assumed reliable and the network can deliver the same client input to any two server processes within a known bounded time (D). There is also a known bound on the communication delay between every pair of correct server processes (d). In order to cope with client crash and server process failure, it is assumed that if a client input is deposited in the local memory of a server process at time t, then it is systematically discarded from this local memory at time t + if it still remains unordered (this bound additionally manages process' memory requirements).The problem addressed in the paper is new and consists of designing protocols that allow the correct server processes to order client inputs identically despite the combined effect of the bound , the behavior of the Byzantine server process, and the client crash failures. The paper presents two results. It first introduces an ordering protocol that works 8 > D + 3d. Then it shows that there is no ordering protocol when < D.

show abstract

“…The RPC implementation also assumes that network partitions will not happen; the group implementation, however, guarantees consistency even in the case of clean network partitions (e.g., any two processors in the same partition can communicate while any two processors in different partitions cannot communicate) [22]. Stronger failure semantics could have been implemented using techniques as described in [23,14,24,25]. Again, we feel that these stronger semantics are too expensive to support, and, moreover, are overkill for an application like the directory service.…”

Section: A Fault-tolerant Directory Servicementioning

confidence: 99%