Randomized protocols for asynchronous consensus

The famous Fischer, Lynch, and Paterson impossibility proof shows that it is impossible to solve the consensus problem in a natural model of an asynchronous distributed system if even a single process can fail. Since its publication, two decades of work on fault-tolerant asynchronous consensus algorithms have evaded this impossibility result by using extended models that provide (a) randomization, (b) additional timing assumptions, (c) failure detectors, or (d) stronger synchronization mechanisms than are available in the basic model. Concentrating on the first of these approaches, we illustrate the history and structure of randomized asynchronous consensus protocols by giving detailed descriptions of several such protocols.Comment: 29 pages; survey paper written for PODC 20th anniversary issue of Distributed Computin

Fast Deterministic Consensus in a Noisy Environment

It is well known that the consensus problem cannot be solved deterministically in an asynchronous environment, but that randomized solutions are possible. We propose a new model, called noisy scheduling, in which an adversarial schedule is perturbed randomly, and show that in this model randomness in the environment can substitute for randomness in the algorithm. In particular, we show that a simplified, deterministic version of Chandra's wait-free shared-memory consensus algorithm (PODC, 1996, pp. 166-175) solves consensus in time at most logarithmic in the number of active processes. The proof of termination is based on showing that a race between independent delayed renewal processes produces a winner quickly. In addition, we show that the protocol finishes in constant time using quantum and priority-based scheduling on a uniprocessor, suggesting that it is robust against the choice of model over a wide range.Comment: Typographical errors fixe

Randomized Two-Process Wait-Free Test-and-Set

We present the first explicit, and currently simplest, randomized algorithm for 2-process wait-free test-and-set. It is implemented with two 4-valued single writer single reader atomic variables. A test-and-set takes at most 11 expected elementary steps, while a reset takes exactly 1 elementary step. Based on a finite-state analysis, the proofs of correctness and expected length are compressed into one table.Comment: 9 pages, 4 figures, LaTeX source; Submitte

Consensus with Max Registers

We consider the problem of implementing randomized wait-free consensus from max registers under the assumption of an oblivious adversary. We show that max registers solve m-valued consensus for arbitrary m in expected O(log^* n) steps per process, beating the Omega(log m/log log m) lower bound for ordinary registers when m is large and the best previously known O(log log n) upper bound when m is small. A simple max-register implementation based on double-collect snapshots translates this result into an O(n log n) expected step implementation of m-valued consensus from n single-writer registers, improving on the best previously-known bound of O(n log^2 n) for single-writer registers

A Complexity-Based Hierarchy for Multiprocessor Synchronization

For many years, Herlihy's elegant computability based Consensus Hierarchy has been our best explanation of the relative power of various types of multiprocessor synchronization objects when used in deterministic algorithms. However, key to this hierarchy is treating synchronization instructions as distinct objects, an approach that is far from the real-world, where multiprocessor programs apply synchronization instructions to collections of arbitrary memory locations. We were surprised to realize that, when considering instructions applied to memory locations, the computability based hierarchy collapses. This leaves open the question of how to better capture the power of various synchronization instructions. In this paper, we provide an approach to answering this question. We present a hierarchy of synchronization instructions, classified by their space complexity in solving obstruction-free consensus. Our hierarchy provides a classification of combinations of known instructions that seems to fit with our intuition of how useful some are in practice, while questioning the effectiveness of others. We prove an essentially tight characterization of the power of buffered read and write instructions.Interestingly, we show a similar result for multi-location atomic assignments

Compositional competitiveness for distributed algorithms

We define a measure of competitive performance for distributed algorithms based on throughput, the number of tasks that an algorithm can carry out in a fixed amount of work. This new measure complements the latency measure of Ajtai et al., which measures how quickly an algorithm can finish tasks that start at specified times. The novel feature of the throughput measure, which distinguishes it from the latency measure, is that it is compositional: it supports a notion of algorithms that are competitive relative to a class of subroutines, with the property that an algorithm that is k-competitive relative to a class of subroutines, combined with an l-competitive member of that class, gives a combined algorithm that is kl-competitive. In particular, we prove the throughput-competitiveness of a class of algorithms for collect operations, in which each of a group of n processes obtains all values stored in an array of n registers. Collects are a fundamental building block of a wide variety of shared-memory distributed algorithms, and we show that several such algorithms are competitive relative to collects. Inserting a competitive collect in these algorithms gives the first examples of competitive distributed algorithms obtained by composition using a general construction.Comment: 33 pages, 2 figures; full version of STOC 96 paper titled "Modular competitiveness for distributed algorithms.