The Weakest Failure Detectors To Solve Quittable Consensus And Nonblocking Atomic Commit

We define quittable consensus, a natural variation of the consensus problem, where processes have the option to agree on "quit" if failures occur, and we relate this problem to the well-known problem of nonblocking atomic commit. We then determine the weakest failure detectors for these two problems in all environments, regardless of the number of faulty processes

The Weakest Failure Detector for Eventual Consistency

In its classical form, a consistent replicated service requires all replicas to witness the same evolution of the service state. Assuming a message-passing environment with a majority of correct processes, the necessary and sufficient information about failures for implementing a general state machine replication scheme ensuring consistency is captured by the {\Omega} failure detector. This paper shows that in such a message-passing environment, {\Omega} is also the weakest failure detector to implement an eventually consistent replicated service, where replicas are expected to agree on the evolution of the service state only after some (a priori unknown) time. In fact, we show that {\Omega} is the weakest to implement eventual consistency in any message-passing environment, i.e., under any assumption on when and where failures might occur. Ensuring (strong) consistency in any environment requires, in addition to {\Omega}, the quorum failure detector {\Sigma}. Our paper thus captures, for the first time, an exact computational difference be- tween building a replicated state machine that ensures consistency and one that only ensures eventual consistency

How Fast can a Distributed Transaction Commit?

The atomic commit problem lies at the heart of distributed database systems. The problem consists for a set of processes (database nodes) to agree on whether to commit or abort a transaction (agreement property). The commit decision can only be taken if all processes are initially willing to commit the transaction, and this decision must be taken if all processes are willing to commit and there is no failure (validity property). An atomic commit protocol is said to be non-blocking if every correct process (a database node that does not fail) eventually reaches a decision (commit or abort) even if there are failures elsewhere in the distributed database system (termination property). Surprisingly, despite the importance of the atomic commit problem, little is known about its complexity. In this paper, we present, for the first time, a systematic study on the time and message complexity of the problem. We measure complexity in the executions that are considered the most frequent in practice, i.e., failure-free, with all processes willing to commit. In other words, we measure how fast a transaction can commit. Through our systematic study, we close many open questions like the complexity of synchronous non-blocking atomic commit. We also present optimal protocols which may be of independent interest. In particular, we present an effective protocol which solves what we call indulgent atomic commit that tolerates practical distributed database systems which are synchronous ``most of the time''

The Complexity of Reliable and Secure Distributed Transactions

The use of transactions in distributed systems dates back to the 70's. The last decade has also seen the proliferation of transactional systems. In the existing transactional systems, many protocols employ a centralized approach in executing a distributed transaction where one single process coordinates the participants of a transaction. The centralized approach is usually straightforward and efficient in the failure-free setting, yet the coordinator then turns to be a single point of failure, undermining reliability/security in the failure-prone setting, or even be a performance bottleneck in practice. In this dissertation, we explore the complexity of decentralized solutions for reliable and secure distributed transactions, which do not use a distinguished coordinator or use the coordinator as little as possible. We show that for some problems in reliable distributed transactions, there are decentralized solutions that perform as efficiently as the classical centralized one, while for some others, we determine the complexity limitations by proving lower and upper bounds to have a better understanding of the state-of-the-art solutions. We first study the complexity on two aspects of reliable transactions: atomicity and consistency. More specifically, we do a systematic study on the time and message complexity of non-blocking atomic commit of a distributed transaction, and investigate intrinsic limitations of causally consistent transactions. Our study of distributed transaction commit focuses on the complexity of the most frequent executions in practice, i.e., failure-free, and willing to commit. Through our systematic study, we close many open questions like the complexity of synchronous non-blocking atomic commit. We also present an effective protocol which solves what we call indulgent atomic commit that tolerates practical distributed database systems which are synchronous "most of the time", and can perform as efficiently as the two-phase commit protocol widely used in distributed database systems. Our investigation of causal transactions focuses on the limitations of read-only transactions, which are considered the most frequent in practice. We consider "fast" read-only transactions where operations are executed within one round-trip message exchange between a client seeking an object and the server storing it (in which no process can be a coordinator). We show two impossibility results regarding "fast" read-only transactions. By our impossibility results, when read-only transactions are "fast", they have to be "visible", i.e., they induce inherent updates on the servers. We also present a "fast" read-only transaction protocol that is "visible" as an upper bound on the complexity of inherent updates. We then study the complexity of secure transactions in the model of secure multiparty computation: even in the face of malicious parties, no party obtains the computation result unless all other parties obtain the same result. As it is impossible to achieve without any trusted party, we focus on optimism where if all parties are honest, they can obtain the computation result without resorting to a trusted third party, and the complexity of every optimistic execution where all parties are honest. We prove a tight lower bound on the message complexity by relating the number of messages to the length of the permutation sequence in combinatorics, a necessary pattern for messages in every optimistic execution