Reducing the cost for non-blocking in atomic commitment

Guerraoui, Rachid; Larrea, Mikel; Schiper, André

doi:10.1109/icdcs.1996.508021

Cited by 24 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It finishes in three communication steps and requires the sending of 4nf +3n point to point messages (or n+2f +2 broadcast messages). Our protocol AC-Set outperforms [GLS96] results. It has the same latency but requires the diffusion of 2nf + 3n point to point messages (or n + f + 2 broadcast messages).…”

Section: Related Work and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Several works considering the use of the consensus service as a terminating protocol to deal with crashes and solve this problem have been suggested elsewhere [GS95,R97,HT97,GLS96,GL04]. In the following, we compare the ACValue and AC-Set protocols with some of these works.…”

Section: Related Work and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In favorable conditions, they early decide in three communication steps and they require the sending of n(2n + 1) point to point messages. To the best of our knowledge, the work of Guerraoui et al [GLS96] is the failure-detector-based protocol which presents the best performance in a good scenario. It finishes in three communication steps and requires the sending of 4nf +3n point to point messages (or n+2f +2 broadcast messages).…”

Section: Related Work and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The modular solutions require an important number of broadcasted messages to tolerate failures: O(n 2 ) [GS95, R97,HT97]. The best protocols exhibit a message complexity of O(nf ) messages [GLS96,GL04], if one considers f as the maximum number of processes that may crash. To reach these good performances, they make use of ad-hoc protocols, where the consensus and the atomic commit are wrapped in an unique block in which protocols are inseparable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, in presence of a low resiliency rate (f < 2), it is as efficient as 2PC and 3PC. The best known protocol, proposed by Guerraoui et al [GLS96] requires (4nf + 3n) messages (without a broadcast network) or (n + 2f + 2) messages (with a broadcast network). Protocol AC-Value requires (n(2n + 1)) messages (without a broadcast network) or (2n + 1) messages (with a broadcast network).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Generating Fast Atomic Commit from Hyperfast Consensus

Greve

Narzul

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This work introduces a highly modular derivation of fast non-blocking atomic commit protocols. Modularity is achieved by the use of consensus protocols as completely independent services. Fast decision is obtained by the use of consensus protocols that decide in one communication step in good scenarios. Two original non-blocking atomic commit protocols are presented. One of the presented protocols outperforms existing equivalent solutions that are based on the use of failure detectors. In the presence of a low resiliency rate, f ≤ 1, it behaves as the classical 2PC and 3PC, exhibiting the same message complexities. In the general case, when one considers the number of tolerated crashes as f < n/2, it exhibits a complexity of 2nf + 3n point to point messages. The best known algorithm exhibits a complexity of 4nf + 3n point to point messages.

show abstract

Section: Related Work and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Related Work and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Work and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Generating Fast Atomic Commit from Hyperfast Consensus

Greve

Narzul

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Group Communication: From Practice to Theory

Schiper

2006

SOFSEM 2006: Theory and Practice of Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the dependability of computer systems is a critical and essential task. In this context, the paper surveys techniques that allow to achieve fault tolerance in distributed systems by replication. The main replication techniques are first explained. Then group communication is introduced as the communication infrastructure that allows the implementation of the different replication techniques. Finally the difficulty of implementing group communication is discussed, and the most important algorithms are presented.

show abstract

Dependable Systems

Schiper

2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Improving the dependability of computer systems is a critical and essential task. In this context, the paper surveys techniques that allow to achieve fault tolerance in distributed systems by replication. The main replication techniques are first explained. Then group communication is introduced as the communication infrastructure that allows the implementation of the different replication techniques. Finally the difficulty of implementing group communication is discussed, and the most important algorithms are presented. IntroductionComputer systems become every day more and more complex. As a consequence the probability of problems in these systems increases over the years. To avoid this from becoming a major issue, researchers have since many years worked on improving the dependability of these systems. The methods involved are traditionally classified as fault prevention, fault tolerance, fault removal and fault forecasting [23]. Fault prevention refers to methods for preventing the occurrence or the introduction of faults in the system. Fault tolerance refers to methods allowing the system to provide a service complying with the specification in spite of faults. Fault removal refers to methods for reducing the number and the severity of faults. Fault forecasting refers to methods for estimating the presence of faults (with the goal to locate and remove them). We concentrate here on fault tolerance.Several techniques to achieve fault tolerance have been developed over the years. The different techniques are related to the specificity of applications. For example, a centralized application differs from a distributed application involving several computing systems. We consider here distributed applications. Fault tolerance for distributed applications can be achieved with different techniques: transactions, checkpointing and replication.Transactions have been introduced many years ago in the context of database systems [3]. A transaction allows us to group a sequence of operations while ensuring some properties on these operations, called ACID properties [3]: Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation and Durability. Atomicity requires that either all Almost the same paper appears under the title Group Communication: from practice to theory in

show abstract

Reducing the cost for non-blocking in atomic commitment

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

Generating Fast Atomic Commit from Hyperfast Consensus

Generating Fast Atomic Commit from Hyperfast Consensus

Group Communication: From Practice to Theory

Dependable Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About