This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Transversal Merge Operation: A Nondominated Coterie Construction Method for Distributed Mutual Exclusion
February 2005 (vol. 16 no. 2)
pp. 183-192
Takashi Harada, IEEE Computer Society
Masafumi Yamashita, IEEE Computer Society

Abstract—A coterie is a set of subsets (called quorums) of the processes in a distributed system such that any two quorums intersect with each other and is mainly used to solve the mutual exclusion problem in a quorum-based algorithm. The choice of a coterie sensitively affects the performance of the algorithm and it is known that nondominated (ND) coteries achieve good performance in terms of criteria such as availability and load. On the other hand, grid coteries have some other attractive features: 1) A quorum size is small, which implies a low message complexity, and 2) a quorum is constructible on the fly, which benefits a low space complexity. However, they are not ND coteries unfortunately. To construct ND coteries having the favorite features of grid coteries, we introduce the transversal merge operation that transforms a dominated coterie into an ND coterie and apply it to grid coteries. We call the constructed ND coteries ND grid coteries. These ND grid coteries have availability higher than the original ones, inheriting the above desirable features from them. To demonstrate this fact, we then investigate their quorum size, load, and availability, and propose a dynamic quorum construction algorithm for an ND grid coterie.

[1] D. Agrawal and A. El Abbadi, “An Efficient and Fault-Tolerant Solution for Distributed Mutual Exclusion,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-20, Feb. 1991.
[2] D. Barbara and H. Garcia-Molina, “The Vulnerability of Vote Assignments,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 187-213, Aug. 1986.
[3] J.C. Bioch and T. Ibaraki, “Generating and Approximating Nondominated Coteries,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 905-914, Sept. 1995.
[4] S.Y. Cheung, M.H. Ammar, and M. Ahamad, “The Grid Protocol: A High Performance Scheme for Maintaining Replicated Data,” IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 582-592, Dec. 1992.
[5] A.W. Fu, “Delay-Optimal Quorum Consensus for Distributed Systems,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 59-69, Jan. 1997.
[6] D.K. Gifford, “Weighted Voting for Replicated Data,” Proc. Seventh Symp. Operating Systems Principles, pp. 150-159, Dec. 1979.
[7] H. Garcia-Molina and D. Barbara, “How to Assign Votes in a Distributed Systems,” J. ACM, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 841-860, Oct. 1985.
[8] T. Harada and M. Yamashita, “Improving the Availability of Mutual Exclusion Systems on Incomplete Networks,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 744-747, July 1999.
[9] T. Ibaraki and T. Kameda, “A Theory of Coteries: Mutual Exclusion in Distributed Systems,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 779-794, July 1993.
[10] A. Kumar and S.Y. Cheung, “A High Availability $\sqrt N$ Hierarchical Grid Algorithm for Replicated Data,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 311-316, Dec. 1991.
[11] A. Kumar, M. Rabinovich, and R.K. Sinha, “A Performance Study of General Grid Structures for Replicated Data,” Proc. 13th Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 178-185, May 1993.
[12] A. Kumar, “An Efficient Supergrid Protocol for High Availability and Load Balancing,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1126-1133, Oct. 2000.
[13] M. Maekawa, “A $\sqrt N$ Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion in Decentralized Systems,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 145-159, May 1985.
[14] M.L. Neilsen, “Quorum Structures in Distributed Systems,” PhD thesis, Kansas State Univ., 1992.
[15] M.L. Neilsen and M. Mizuno, “Coterie Join Algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 582-590, Sept. 1992.
[16] M. Naor and A. Wool, “The Load, Capacity, and Availability of Quorum Systems,” SIAM J. Computing, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 423-447, Mar. 1998.
[17] N. Preguiça and J. Martins, “Revisiting Hierarchical Quorum Systems,” Proc. 21st Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 264-274, Apr. 2001.
[18] D. Peleg and A. Wool, “The Availability of Quorum Systems,” Information and Computation, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 210-223, Dec. 1995.
[19] D. Peleg and A. Wool, “Crumbling Walls: A Class of Practical and Efficient Quorum Systems,” Distributed Computing, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 87-97, 1997.
[20] B. Sanders, “The Information Structure of Distributed Mutual Exclusion Algorithm,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 284-299, Aug. 1987.
[21] R. Thomas, “A Majority Consensus Approach to Concurrency Control,” ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 323-342, June 1979.

Index Terms:
Coteries, distributed systems, grid structures, mutual exclusion algorithms, nondominatedness, quorum consensus, transversals.
Citation:
Takashi Harada, Masafumi Yamashita, "Transversal Merge Operation: A Nondominated Coterie Construction Method for Distributed Mutual Exclusion," IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 183-192, Feb. 2005, doi:10.1109/TPDS.2005.25
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.