Relating L-Resilience and Wait-Freedom via Hitting Sets

The condition of t-resilience stipulates that an n-process program is only obliged to make progress when at least n-t processes are correct. Put another way, the live sets, the collection of process sets such that progress is required if all the processes in one of these sets are correct, are all sets with at least n-t processes. We show that the ability of arbitrary collection of live sets L to solve distributed tasks is tightly related to the minimum hitting set of L, a minimum cardinality subset of processes that has a non-empty intersection with every live set. Thus, finding the computing power of L is NP-complete. For the special case of colorless tasks that allow participating processes to adopt input or output values of each other, we use a simple simulation to show that a task can be solved L-resiliently if and only if it can be solved (h-1)-resiliently, where h is the size of the minimum hitting set of L. For general tasks, we characterize L-resilient solvability of tasks with respect to a limited notion of weak solvability: in every execution where all processes in some set in L are correct, outputs must be produced for every process in some (possibly different) participating set in L. Given a task T, we construct another task T_L such that T is solvable weakly L-resiliently if and only if T_L is solvable weakly wait-free

The solvability of consensus in iterated models extended with safe-consensus

The safe-consensus task was introduced by Afek, Gafni and Lieber (DISC'09) as a weakening of the classic consensus. When there is concurrency, the consensus output can be arbitrary, not even the input of any process. They showed that safe-consensus is equivalent to consensus, in a wait-free system. We study the solvability of consensus in three shared memory iterated models extended with the power of safe-consensus black boxes. In the first model, for the $i$-th iteration, processes write to the memory, invoke safe-consensus boxes and finally they snapshot the memory. We show that in this model, any wait-free implementation of consensus requires $\binom{n}{2}$ safe-consensus black-boxes and this bound is tight. In a second iterated model, the processes write to memory, then they snapshot it and finally they invoke safe-consensus boxes. We prove that in this model, consensus cannot be implemented. In the last iterated model, processes first invoke safe-consensus, then they write to memory and finally they snapshot it. We show that this model is equivalent to the previous model and thus consensus cannot be implemented.Comment: 49 pages, A preliminar version of the main results appeared in the SIROCCO 2014 proceeding

Wait-Freedom with Advice

We motivate and propose a new way of thinking about failure detectors which allows us to define, quite surprisingly, what it means to solve a distributed task \emph{wait-free} \emph{using a failure detector}. In our model, the system is composed of \emph{computation} processes that obtain inputs and are supposed to output in a finite number of steps and \emph{synchronization} processes that are subject to failures and can query a failure detector. We assume that, under the condition that \emph{correct} synchronization processes take sufficiently many steps, they provide the computation processes with enough \emph{advice} to solve the given task wait-free: every computation process outputs in a finite number of its own steps, regardless of the behavior of other computation processes. Every task can thus be characterized by the \emph{weakest} failure detector that allows for solving it, and we show that every such failure detector captures a form of set agreement. We then obtain a complete classification of tasks, including ones that evaded comprehensible characterization so far, such as renaming or weak symmetry breaking