Asynchronous neighborhood task synchronization

Faults are likely to occur in distributed systems. The motivation for designing self-stabilizing system is to be able to automatically recover from a faulty state. As per Dijkstra\u27s definition, a system is self-stabilizing if it converges to a desired state from an arbitrary state in a finite number of steps. The paradigm of self-stabilization is considered to be the most unified approach to designing fault-tolerant systems. Any type of faults, e.g., transient, process crashes and restart, link failures and recoveries, and byzantine faults, can be handled by a self-stabilizing system; Many applications in distributed systems involve multiple phases. Solving these applications require some degree of synchronization of phases. In this thesis research, we introduce a new problem, called asynchronous neighborhood task synchronization ( NTS ). In this problem, processes execute infinite instances of tasks, where a task consists of a set of steps. There are several requirements for this problem. Simultaneous execution of steps by the neighbors is allowed only if the steps are different. Every neighborhood is synchronized in the sense that all neighboring processes execute the same instance of a task. Although the NTS problem is applicable in nonfaulty environments, it is more challenging to solve this problem considering various types of faults. In this research, we will present a self-stabilizing solution to the NTS problem. The proposed solution is space optimal, fault containing, fully localized, and fully distributed. One of the most desirable properties of our algorithm is that it works under any (including unfair) daemon. We will discuss various applications of the NTS problem

Self-stabilizing protocol for anonymous oriented bi-directional rings under unfair distributed schedulers with a leader

We propose a self-stabilizing protocol for anonymous oriented bi-directional rings of any size under unfair distributed schedulers with a leader. The protocol is a randomized self-stabilizing, meaning that starting from an arbitrary configuration it converges (with probability 1) in finite time to a legitimate configuration (i.e. global system state) without the need for explicit exception handler of backward recovery. A fault may throw the system into an illegitimate configuration, but the system will autonomously resume a legitimate configuration, by regarding the current illegitimate configuration as an initial configuration, if the fault is transient. A self-stabilizing system thus tolerates any kind and any finite number of transient faults. The protocol can be used to implement an unfair distributed mutual exclusion in any ring topology network; Keywords: self-stabilizing protocol, anonymous oriented bi-directional ring, unfair distributed schedulers. Ring topology network, non-uniform and anonymous network, self-stabilization, fault tolerance, legitimate configuration

Leader Election in Anonymous Rings: Franklin Goes Probabilistic

We present a probabilistic leader election algorithm for anonymous, bidirectional, asynchronous rings. It is based on an algorithm from Franklin, augmented with random identity selection, hop counters to detect identity clashes, and round numbers modulo 2. As a result, the algorithm is finite-state, so that various model checking techniques can be employed to verify its correctness, that is, eventually a unique leader is elected with probability one. We also sketch a formal correctness proof of the algorithm for rings with arbitrary size

A Taxonomy of Daemons in Self-stabilization

We survey existing scheduling hypotheses made in the literature in self-stabilization, commonly referred to under the notion of daemon. We show that four main characteristics (distribution, fairness, boundedness, and enabledness) are enough to encapsulate the various differences presented in existing work. Our naming scheme makes it easy to compare daemons of particular classes, and to extend existing possibility or impossibility results to new daemons. We further examine existing daemon transformer schemes and provide the exact transformed characteristics of those transformers in our taxonomy.Comment: 26 page

Self-Stabilization in the Distributed Systems of Finite State Machines

The notion of self-stabilization was first proposed by Dijkstra in 1974 in his classic paper. The paper defines a system as self-stabilizing if, starting at any, possibly illegitimate, state the system can automatically adjust itself to eventually converge to a legitimate state in finite amount of time and once in a legitimate state it will remain so unless it incurs a subsequent transient fault. Dijkstra limited his attention to a ring of finite-state machines and provided its solution for self-stabilization. In the years following his introduction, very few papers were published in this area. Once his proposal was recognized as a milestone in work on fault tolerance, the notion propagated among the researchers rapidly and many researchers in the distributed systems diverted their attention to it. The investigation and use of self-stabilization as an approach to fault-tolerant behavior under a model of transient failures for distributed systems is now undergoing a renaissance. A good number of works pertaining to self-stabilization in the distributed systems were proposed in the yesteryears most of which are very recent. This report surveys all previous works available in the literature of self-stabilizing systems

On the Limits and Practice of Automatically Designing Self-Stabilization

A protocol is said to be self-stabilizing when the distributed system executing it is guaranteed to recover from any fault that does not cause permanent damage. Designing such protocols is hard since they must recover from all possible states, therefore we investigate how feasible it is to synthesize them automatically. We show that synthesizing stabilization on a fixed topology is NP-complete in the number of system states. When a solution is found, we further show that verifying its correctness on a general topology (with any number of processes) is undecidable, even for very simple unidirectional rings. Despite these negative results, we develop an algorithm to synthesize a self-stabilizing protocol given its desired topology, legitimate states, and behavior. By analogy to shadow puppetry, where a puppeteer may design a complex puppet to cast a desired shadow, a protocol may need to be designed in a complex way that does not even resemble its specification. Our shadow/puppet synthesis algorithm addresses this concern and, using a complete backtracking search, has automatically designed 4 new self-stabilizing protocols with minimal process space requirements: 2-state maximal matching on bidirectional rings, 5-state token passing on unidirectional rings, 3-state token passing on bidirectional chains, and 4-state orientation on daisy chains

Self-stabilizing network orientation algorithms in arbitrary rooted networks

Network orientation is the problem of assigning different labels to the edges at each processor, in a globally consistent manner. A self-stabilizing protocol guarantees that the system will arrive at a legitimate state in finite time, irrespective of the initial state of the system. Two deterministic distributed network orientation protocols on arbitrary rooted, asynchronous networks are proposed in this work. Both protocols set up a chordal sense of direction in the network. The protocols are self-stabilizing, meaning that starting from an arbitrary state, the protocols are guaranteed to reach a state in which every processor has a valid node label and every link has a valid edge label. The first protocol assumes an underlying depth-first token circulation protocol; it orients the network as the token is passed among the nodes and stabilizes in O(n) steps after the token circulation stabilizes, where n is the number of processors in the network. The second protocol is designed on an underlying spanning tree protocol and stabilizes in O(h) time, after the spanning tree is constructed, where h is the height of the spanning tree. Although the second protocol assumes the existence of a spanning tree of the rooted network, it orients all edges--both tree and non-tree edges--of the network