No abstract

We determine what information about failures is necessary and sufficient to solve Consensus in asynchronous distributed systems subject to crash failures. In Chandra and Toueg [1996], it is shown that W , a failure detector that provides surprisingly little information about which processes have crashed, is sufficient to solve Consensus in asynchronous systems with a majority of correct processes. In this paper, we prove that to solve Consensus, any failure detector has to provide at least as much information as W. Thus, W is indeed the weakest failure detector for solving Consensus in asynchronous systems with a majority of correct processes.

We determine what information about failures is necessary and sufficient to solve Consensus in asynchronous distributed systems subject to crash failures. In [CT91], we proved that OW, a failure detector that provides surprisingly little information about which processes have crashed, is sufficient to solve Consensus in asynchronous systems with a majority of correct processes. In this paper, we prove that to solve Consensus, any failure detector has to provide at least as much information as O>W. Thus, OW is indeed the weakest failure detector for solving Consensus in asynchronous systems with a majority of correct processes.

We determine the weakest failure detectors to solve several fundamental problems in distributed message-passing systems, for all environments -i.e., regardless of the number and timing of crashes. The problems that we consider are: implementing an atomic register, solving consensus, solving quittable consensus (a variant of consensus in which processes have the option to decide 'quit' if a failure occurs), and solving non-blocking atomic commit.

No abstract