The Failure Detector Abstraction

This paper surveys the failure detector concept through two dimensions. First we study failure detectors as building blocks to simplify the design of reliable distributed algorithms. More specifically, we illustrate how failure detectors can factor out timing assumptions to detect failures in distributed agreement algorithms. Second, we study failure detectors as computability benchmarks. That is, we survey the weakest failure detector question and illustrate how failure detectors can be used to classify problems. We also highlights some limitations of the failure detector abstraction along each of the dimensions

The Failure Detector Abstraction

A failure detector is a fundamental abstraction in distributed computing. This paper surveys this abstraction through two dimensions. First we study failure detectors as building blocks to simplify the design of reliable distributed algorithms. In particular, we illustrate how failure detectors can factor out timing assumptions to detect failures in distributed agreement algorithms. Second, we study failure detectors as computability benchmarks. That is, we survey the weakest failure detector question and illustrate how failure detectors can be used to classify problems. We also highlight some limitations of the failure detector abstraction along each of the dimensions

Communication Predicates: A high-level abstraction for coping with transient and dynamic faults

Consensus is one of the key problems in fault tolerant distributed computing. A very popular model for solving consensus is the failure detector model defined by Chandra and Toueg. However, the failure detector model has limitations. The paper points out these limitations, and suggests instead a model based on communication predicates, called HO model. The advantage of the HO model over failure detectors is shown, and the implementation of the HO model is discussed in the context of a system that alternates between good periods and bad periods. Two definitions of a good period are considered. For both definitions, the HO model allows us to compute the duration of a good period for solving consensus. Specifically, the model allows us to quantify the difference between the required length of an initial good period and the length of a non initial good period

A study of Jupiter flyby missions Mid-term technical report

Jupiter flyby missions study - scientific experiments, spacecraft design concepts, and Earth-Jupiter transfer trajectorie

A study of Jupiter flyby missions Final technical report

Mission planning and spacecraft design concepts for Jupiter flyby missio

Gamma-Accurate Failure Detectors

. The knowledge about failures needed to solve distributed agreement problems can be expressed in terms of completeness and accuracy properties of failure detectors introduced by Chandra and Toueg. The accuracy properties they have considered restrict the false suspicions that can be made by all the processes in the system. In this paper, we define "\Gamma \Gammaaccurate" failure detectors, whose accuracy properties (only) restrict the false suspicions that can be made by a subset \Gamma of the processes. We discuss the relations between the classes of \Gamma \Gammaaccurate failure detectors, and the classes of failure detectors defined by Chandra and Toueg. Then we point out the impact of these relations on the solvability of agreement problems. 1 Introduction 1.1 Restricting accuracy Chandra and Toueg have expressed the knowledge about failures needed to solve distributed agreement problems in terms of completeness and accuracy properties of failure detectors [4]. Completeness pro..