Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffusion to Byzantine Agreement

Cristian, Flaviu; Aghili, H.; Strong, Ray; Dolev, Danny

doi:10.1006/inco.1995.1060

Cited by 138 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, three different, but related, problems were addressed: consensus [6,9,11,12,13,19], agreement or interactive consistency [7,10,24], and leader election [2,3,5,8,15,16,17,20,25]. In the consensus problem, all of the non-faulty processors in the network want to agree on a single bit, a 0 or a 1.…”

Section: Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimal asynchronous agreement and leader election algorithm for complete networks with Byzantine faulty links

Sayeed

Abu-Amara²,

Abu-Amara

1995

Distrib Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider agreement and leader election on asynchronous complete networks when the processors are reliable, but some of the channels are subject to failure. Fischer, Lynch, and Paterson have already shown that no deterministic algorithm can solve the agreement problem on asynchronous networks if any processor fails during the execution of the algorithm. Therefore, we consider only channel failures. The type of channel failure we consider in this paper is Byzantine failure, that is, channels fail by altering messages, sending false information, forging messages, losing messages at will, and so on. There are no restrictions on the behavior of a faulty channel. Therefore, a faulty channel may act as an adversary who forges messages on purpose to prevent the successful completion of the algorithm. Because we assume an asynchronous network, the channel delays are arbitrary. Thus, the faulty channels may not be detectable unless, for example, the faulty channels cause garbage to be sent. We present the first known agreement and leader election algorithm for asynchronous complete networks in which the processors are reliable but some channels may be Byzantine faulty. The algorithm can tolerate up to [~-~] faulty channels, where n is the number of processors in the network. We show that the bound on the number of faulty channels is optimal. When the processors terminate their corresponding algorithms, all the processors in the network will have the same correct vector, where the vector contains the private values of all the processors.

show abstract

Section: Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the answer is no to both checks, then Y adds M to IDMessage-List(Y, ~), labels the ID "/ as certified, increments CNT(Y, ~,), broadcasts the message "Verify-ID, ~," to all other nodes including the node from which Y received M, and executes Step 3. 7), and executes Step 3.…”

Section: Appendix A: Detailed Description Of the Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal asynchronous agreement and leader election algorithm for complete networks with Byzantine faulty links

Sayeed

Abu-Amara²,

Abu-Amara

1995

Distrib Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For intraprocessor communication, it is assumed that message send and receive operations are atomic, i.e., the data transfer of send and receive operations is indivisible. For interprocessor communication, it is assumed that a reliable broad-or multicast protocol is available, e.g., [7], [8], [35]. This service guarantees that a message, once sent, is delivered to all correct participants within time units.…”

Section: System Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This observation is based on the impossibility of simultaneous actions which is caused by the finite accuracy of any ªrealº component. 7 This impossibility result can be translated to the problem of deterministic operation as follows: Since scheduling decisions cannot be carried out simultaneously, it is impossible for replicated tasks to return their results simultaneously. This negative conclusion on the possibility of common knowledge does not say that it is completely impossible to operate replicated tasks deterministically.…”

Section: Common Knowledge and Simultaneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Replica determinism and flexible scheduling in hard real-time dependable systems

Poledna¹,

Burns

Wellings

et al. 2000

IEEE Trans. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractÐFault-tolerant real-time systems are typically based on active replication where replicated entities are required to deliver their outputs in an identical order within a given time interval. Distributed scheduling of replicated tasks, however, violates this requirement if on-line scheduling, preemptive scheduling, or scheduling of dissimilar replicated task sets is employed. This problem of inconsistent task outputs has been solved previously by coordinating the decisions of the local schedulers such that replicated tasks are executed in an identical order. Global coordination results either in an extremely high communication effort to agree on each schedule decision or in an overly restrictive execution model where on-line scheduling, arbitrary preemptions, and nonidentically replicated task sets are not allowed. To overcome these restrictions, a new method, called timed messages, is introduced. Timed messages guarantee deterministic operation by presenting consistent message versions to the replicated tasks. This approach is based on simulated common knowledge and a sparse time base. Timed messages are very effective since they neither require communication between the local scheduler nor do they restrict usage of on-line flexible scheduling, preemptions and nonidentically replicated task sets.

show abstract