An efficient protocol for checkpointing recovery in distributed systems

Kim, J.L.; Park, T.

doi:10.1109/71.238629

Cited by 95 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All the above algorithms follow two approaches to reduce the overhead associated with coordinated checkpointing algorithms: One is to minimize the number of synchronization messages and the number of checkpoints [2], [5], [6], [9], [10], [13], [19], the other is to make checkpointing nonblocking [4], [7], [11], [20]. These two approaches were orthogonal in previous years until the Prakash-Singhal algorithm [18] combined them.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Koo and Toueg's algorithm [10], if any of the involved processes is not able to or not willing to take a checkpoint, the entire checkpointing process is aborted. Kim and Park [9] proposed an improved scheme that allows the new checkpoints in some subtrees to be committed while the others are aborted.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All the above coordinated checkpointing algorithms [2], [5], [6], [9], [10], [13], [19] require processes to be blocked during checkpointing. Checkpointing includes the time to trace the dependence tree and to save the state of processes on stable storage, which may be long.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of the previous work [6], [9], [10], [13] in coordinated checkpointing has focused on minimizing the number of synchronization messages and the number of checkpoints during checkpointing. However, these algorithms (called blocking algorithms) force all relevant processes in the system to block their computations during checkpointing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On coordinated checkpointing in distributed systems

Singhal

1998

IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst.

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Coordinated checkpointing simplifies failure recovery and eliminates domino effects in case of failures by preserving a consistent global checkpoint on stable storage. However, the approach suffers from high overhead associated with the checkpointing process. Two approaches are used to reduce the overhead: First is to minimize the number of synchronization messages and the number of checkpoints, the other is to make the checkpointing process nonblocking. These two approaches were orthogonal in previous years until the Prakash-Singhal algorithm [18] combined them. In other words, the Prakash-Singhal algorithm forces only a minimum number of processes to take checkpoints and it does not block the underlying computation. However, we found two problems in this algorithm. In this paper, we identify these problems and prove a more general result: There does not exist a nonblocking algorithm that forces only a minimum number of processes to take their checkpoints. Based on this general result, we propose an efficient algorithm that neither forces all processes to take checkpoints nor blocks the underlying computation during checkpointing. Also, we point out future research directions in designing coordinated checkpointing algorithms for distributed computing systems.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On coordinated checkpointing in distributed systems

Singhal

1998

IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst.

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After a failure, the application rolls back to the last state that was saved and starts its re-execution. Checkpoint protocols are usually divided into two groups, uncoordinated (Borg et al, 1989) (Johnson and Zwaenepoel, 1987) (Neves et al, 1994) (Strom and Yemini, 1985) (Wang and Fuchs, 1993) (Wang and Fuchs, 1992) and coordinated (Chandy and Lamport, 1985) (Cristian and Jahanian, 1991) (Kim and Park, 1993) (Koo and Toueg, 1987) (Neves and Fuchs, 1996) (Neves and Fuchs, 1998a) (Plank, 1993). In uncoordinated checkpoint protocols, each process determines independently from the others the instant when its state should be saved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependable Distributed and Mobile Computing — Utilizing Time to Enhance Recovery from Failures

Fuchs

Neves

Ssu

2000

Dependable Network Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile computing allows ubiquitous and continuous access to computing resources while users travel or work at a client's site. The flexibility introduced by mobile computing brings new challenges to dependability and fault tolerance. Failures that were rare with fixed hosts become common, and host disconnections make fault detection and message coordination difficult. This chapter describes checkpointing and failure recovery procedures that are well adapted to both distributed and mobile environments. The protocols use time to indirectly coordinate the creation of new global states and thereby avoid message exchanges. The mobile protocol uses two different types of checkpoints to adapt to network characteristics. Procedures for integrating adaptive mobile checkpointing with storage management are also described.

show abstract

Rollback recovery for a communication system with two failure states

Kimura

Yasui

Nakagawa

2001

Electron Comm Jpn Pt III

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAs computer communication technology has developed, system control mechanisms have been realized by a number of processors, and hence, it has become necessary to carry out processing distributively and rapidly. Also, as the system mechanisms have become increasingly complicated, the problems of improving reliability and increasing capabilities have become important. In this paper, we consider a control system which is roughly divided into one mark processor and a group of other processors, and formulate a stochastic model, by taking notice of only communications between two processors. We perform scheduled checkpointing and execute rollback recovery to restore the consistency of a whole system when two faults of processor failures and communication errors have occurred. The expected cost is obtained and an optimal checkpoint interval which minimizes it is discussed. © 2001 Scripta Technica, Electron Comm Jpn Pt 3, 84(9): 4955, 2001

show abstract

An efficient protocol for checkpointing recovery in distributed systems

Cited by 95 publications

References 15 publications

On coordinated checkpointing in distributed systems

On coordinated checkpointing in distributed systems

Dependable Distributed and Mobile Computing — Utilizing Time to Enhance Recovery from Failures

Rollback recovery for a communication system with two failure states

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About