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, `)-BD task has the following requirement: there is a value v such that at most ` 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 [16] for every instance of the BD task. We also determine values of n, `, m, and k such that the (n, `)-BD task can solve the (m, k)-SA task (where m processes can decide at most k distinct values). Using our results and a previouslyknown impossibility result for set agreement [8], 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 [2, 18]. 1998 ACM Subject Classification C.2.4 Distributed Systems

[1]  Soma Chaudhuri,et al.  Understanding the Set Consensus Partial Order Using the Borowsky-Gafni Simulation (Extended Abstract) , 1996, WDAG.

[2]  Yehuda Afek,et al.  From bounded to unbounded concurrency objects and back , 2011, PODC '11.

[3]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Impossibility results for asynchronous PRAM (extended abstract) , 1991, SPAA '91.

[4]  Michel Raynal,et al.  Renaming Is Weaker Than Set Agreement But for Perfect Renaming: A Map of Sub-consensus Tasks , 2012, LATIN.

[5]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Subconsensus Tasks: Renaming Is Weaker Than Set Agreement , 2006, DISC.

[6]  Faith Ellen,et al.  Restricted Stack Implementations , 2005, DISC.

[7]  Michel Raynal,et al.  Test & Set, Adaptive Renaming and Set Agreement: a Guided Visit to Asynchronous Computability , 2007, 2007 26th IEEE International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS 2007).

[8]  Yehuda Afek,et al.  A completeness theorem for a class of synchronization objects , 1993, PODC '93.

[9]  Soma Chaudhuri,et al.  Agreement is harder than consensus: set consensus problems in totally asynchronous systems , 1990, PODC '90.

[10]  Matei David,et al.  A Single-Enqueuer Wait-Free Queue Implementation , 2004, DISC.

[11]  Yehuda Afek,et al.  Common2 extended to stacks and unbounded concurrency , 2006, PODC '06.

[12]  Ophir Rachman,et al.  Anomalies in the Wait-Free Hierarchy , 1994, WDAG.

[13]  James H. Anderson,et al.  Wait-Free Synchronization in Quantum-Based Multiprogrammed Systems , 1998, DISC.

[14]  David Eisenstat,et al.  Two-enqueuer queue in Common2 , 2008, 0805.0444.

[15]  Faith Ellen,et al.  Deterministic Objects: Life Beyond Consensus , 2016, PODC.

[16]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process , 1985, JACM.

[17]  Nir Shavit,et al.  Atomic snapshots of shared memory , 1990, JACM.