24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2004. Proceedings. 2004
DOI: 10.1109/icdcs.2004.1281564
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dining philosophers with crash locality 1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The popularity of ♦S and ♦P is not just incidental. Despite apparently weak guarantees on crash fault detection, ♦S has been shown to solve consensus and other related problems [10,11], and ♦P has been shown to solve problems including dining philosophers [35,36], stable leader election [2], quiescent reliable communication [1], and contention management [25].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The popularity of ♦S and ♦P is not just incidental. Despite apparently weak guarantees on crash fault detection, ♦S has been shown to solve consensus and other related problems [10,11], and ♦P has been shown to solve problems including dining philosophers [35,36], stable leader election [2], quiescent reliable communication [1], and contention management [25].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [42], Pike and Sivilotti propose a transformation of the hygienic algorithm to reduce the failure locality to 1 (Fig. 10).…”
Section: Case Study Example: Resource Allocation Using Dining Philosomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10. Hygienic dining philosopher algorithm, transformed to tolerate crashes (adapted from [42]). are roughly the same, then the total number of messages sent out in the entire network is Oðn · dÞ for each round of leases.…”
Section: Message Complexitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The failure detector 3P is sufficiently powerful to solve many classic problems in distributed computing, including fault tolerant consensus [5], stable leader election [2], quiescent reliable communication [1], waitfree contention management [14], crash-locality-1 dining philosophers [20], and wait-free dining under eventual weak exclusion [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%