On the Number of Objects with Distinct Power and the Linearizability of Set Agreement Objects

We first prove that there are uncountably many objects with distinct computational powers. More precisely, we show that there is an uncountable set of objects such that for any two of them, at least one cannot be implemented from the other (and registers) in a wait-free manner. We then strengthen this result by showing that there are uncountably many linearizable objects with distinct computational powers. To do so, we prove that for all positive integers n and k, there is a linearizable object that is computationally equivalent to the k-set agreement task among n processes. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first linearizable objects proven to be computationally equivalent to set agreement tasks

Bounded Disagreement

A well-known generalization of the consensus problem, namely, set agreement (SA), limits the number of distinct decision values that processes decide. In some settings, it may be more important to limit the number of "disagreers". Thus, we introduce another natural generalization of the consensus problem, namely, bounded disagreement (BD), which limits the number of processes that decide differently from the plurality. More precisely, in a system with n processes, the (n, l)-BD task has the following requirement: there is a value v such that at most l processes (the disagreers) decide a value other than v. Despite their apparent similarities, the results described below show that bounded disagreement, consensus, and set agreement are in fact fundamentally different problems. We investigate the relationship between bounded disagreement, consensus, and set agreement. In particular, we determine the consensus number for every instance of the BD task. We also determine values of n, l, m, and k such that the (n, l)-BD task can solve the (m, k)-SA task (where m processes can decide at most k distinct values). Using our results and a previously known impossibility result for set agreement, we prove that for all n >= 2, there is a BD task (and a corresponding BD object) that has consensus number n but can not be solved using n-consensus and registers. Prior to our paper, the only objects known to have this unusual characteristic for n >= 2 (which shows that the consensus number of an object is not sufficient to fully capture its power) were artificial objects crafted solely for the purpose of exhibiting this behaviour

A Wealth of Sub-Consensus Deterministic Objects

The consensus hierarchy classifies shared an object according to its consensus number, which is the maximum number of processes that can solve consensus wait-free using the object. The question of whether this hierarchy is precise enough to fully characterize the synchronization power of deterministic shared objects was open until 2016, when Afek et al. showed that there is an infinite hierarchy of deterministic objects, each weaker than the next, which is strictly between i and i+1-processors consensus, for i >= 2. For i=1, the question whether there exist a deterministic object whose power is strictly between read-write and 2-processors consensus, remained open. We resolve the question positively by exhibiting an infinite hierarchy of simple deterministic objects which are equivalent to set-consensus tasks, and thus are stronger than read-write registers, but they cannot implement consensus for two processes. Still our paper leaves a gap with open questions

Continuous Tasks and the Asynchronous Computability Theorem

The celebrated 1999 Asynchronous Computability Theorem (ACT) of Herlihy and Shavit characterized distributed tasks that are wait-free solvable and uncovered deep connections with combinatorial topology. We provide an alternative characterization of those tasks by means of the novel concept of continuous tasks, which have an input/output specification that is a continuous function between the geometric realizations of the input and output complex: We state and prove a precise characterization theorem (CACT) for wait-free solvable tasks in terms of continuous tasks. Its proof utilizes a novel chromatic version of a foundational result in algebraic topology, the simplicial approximation theorem, which is also proved in this paper. Apart from the alternative proof of the ACT implied by our CACT, we also demonstrate that continuous tasks have an expressive power that goes beyond classic task specifications, and hence open up a promising venue for future research: For the well-known approximate agreement task, we show that one can easily encode the desired proportion of the occurrence of specific outputs, namely, exact agreement, in the continuous task specification

Impossibility Results for Asynchronous PRAM (extended abstract)

In the asynchronous PRAM model, processes communicate by atomically reading and writing shared memory locations. This paper investigates the extent to which asynchronous PRAM permits long-lived, highly concurrent data structures. An implementation of a concurrent object is non-blocking if some operation will always complete in a nite number of steps, it is wait-free if every operation will complete in a nite number of steps, and it is k-bounded wait-free, for some k>0, if every operation will complete within k steps. It is known that asynchronous PRAM cannot be used to construct a non-blocking implementation of any object that solves two-process consensus, a class of objects that includes many common data types. It is natural to ask whether the converse holds: does asynchronous PRAM permit non-blocking implementations of any object that does not solve consensus? This papers shows that the answer is no. There is a strict in nite hierarchy among objects that do not solve consensus: there exist objects (1) without non-blocking implementations, (2) with implementations that are non-blocking but not wait-free, (3) with implementations that are wait-free but not bounded wait-free, and (4) with implementations that are K-bounded wait-free but not k-bounded wait-free for all k>0 and some K>k

Notes on Theory of Distributed Systems

Notes for the Yale course CPSC 465/565 Theory of Distributed Systems