The Disagreement Power of an Adversary

At the heart of distributed computing lies the fundamental result that the level of agreement that can be obtained in an asynchronous shared memory model where t processes can crash is exactly t + 1. In other words, an adversary that can crash any subset of size at most t can prevent the processes from agreeing on t values. But what about the remaining (22n - n) adversaries that might crash certain combination of processes and not others? This paper presents a precise way to characterize such adversaries by introducing the notion of disagreement power: the biggest integer k for which the adversary can prevent processes from agreeing on k values. We show how to compute the disagreement power of an adversary and how this notion enables to derive n equivalence classes of adversaries.

[1]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  The decidability of distributed decision tasks (extended abstract) , 1997, STOC '97.

[2]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  The topological structure of asynchronous computability , 1999, JACM.

[3]  Petr Kuznetsov,et al.  The weakest failure detector for solving k-set agreement , 2009, PODC '09.

[4]  K. Srinathan,et al.  On tradeoff between network connectivity, phase complexity and communication complexity of reliable communication tolerating mixed adversary , 2008, PODC '08.

[5]  Sam Toueg,et al.  The weakest failure detector for solving consensus , 1992, PODC '92.

[6]  Sam Toueg,et al.  Generalized Irreducibility of Consensus and the Equivalence of t-Resilient and Wait-Free Implementations of Consensus , 2004, SIAM J. Comput..

[7]  Vassos Hadzilacos,et al.  Using Failure Detectors to Solve Consensus in Asynchronous Sharde-Memory Systems (Extended Abstract) , 1994, WDAG.

[8]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Immediate atomic snapshots and fast renaming , 1993, PODC '93.

[9]  Baruch Awerbuch,et al.  Atomic Shared Register Access by Asynchronous Hardware (Detailed Abstract) , 1986, FOCS 1986.

[10]  Baruch Awerbuch,et al.  Atomic shared register access by asynchronous hardware , 1986, 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986).

[11]  Keith Marzullo,et al.  A framework for the design of dependent‐failure algorithms , 2007, Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp..

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

[13]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Generalized FLP impossibility result for t-resilient asynchronous computations , 1993, STOC.

[14]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects , 1990, TOPL.

[15]  Soma Chaudhuri,et al.  More Choices Allow More Faults: Set Consensus Problems in Totally Asynchronous Systems , 1993, Inf. Comput..

[16]  Matthias Fitzi,et al.  Efficient Byzantine Agreement Secure Against General Adversaries , 1998, DISC.

[17]  Piotr Zielinski,et al.  Anti-Ω: the weakest failure detector for set agreement , 2010, PODC '08.

[18]  Prasad Jayanti,et al.  Robust wait-free hierarchies , 1997, JACM.

[19]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  The BG distributed simulation algorithm , 2001, Distributed Computing.

[20]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  On the weakest failure detector ever , 2007, PODC.

[21]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  Wait-free k-set agreement is impossible: the topology of public knowledge , 1993, STOC.

[22]  Keith Marzullo,et al.  Designing algorithms for dependent process failures , 2003 .

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

[24]  Sam Toueg,et al.  Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems , 1996, JACM.

[25]  Antonio Fernandez Anta,et al.  Weakest failure detectors via an egg-laying simulation ( Preliminary Version ) , 2009 .