The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.02 - March/April (2012 vol.9)
pp: 236-249
Martin Hutle , Fraunhofer AISEC, Munich
Nuno Santos , École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne
Fatemeh Borran , École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne
ABSTRACT
Consensus is one of the key problems in fault-tolerant distributed computing. Although the solvability of consensus is now a well-understood problem, comparing different algorithms in terms of efficiency is still an open problem. In this paper, we address this question for round-based consensus algorithms using communication predicates, on top of a partial synchronous system that alternates between good and bad periods (synchronous and nonsynchronous periods). Communication predicates together with the detailed timing information of the underlying partially synchronous system provide a convenient and powerful framework for comparing different consensus algorithms and their implementations. This approach allows us to quantify the required length of a good period to solve a given number of consensus instances. With our results, we can observe several interesting issues, such as the number of rounds of an algorithm is not necessarily a good metric for its performance.
INDEX TERMS
Distributed systems, fault tolerance, distributed algorithms, round-based model, consensus, system modeling.
CITATION
Martin Hutle, Nuno Santos, Fatemeh Borran, "Quantitative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms", IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol.9, no. 2, pp. 236-249, March/April 2012, doi:10.1109/TDSC.2011.48
REFERENCES
[1] D. Alistarh, S. Gilbert, R. Guerraoui, and C. Travers, “How to Solve Consensus in the Smallest Window of Synchrony,” Proc. 22nd Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing (DISC '08), pp. 32-46, 2008.
[2] F. Borran, M. Hutle, N. Santos, and A. Schiper, “Quantitative Analysis of Consensus Algorithms,” Technical Report EPFL-REPORT-150216, EPFL, 2010.
[3] T.D. Chandra and S. Toueg, “Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems,” J. ACM, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 225-267, Mar. 1996.
[4] B. Charron-Bost and A. Schiper, “Improving Fast Paxos: Being Optimistic with no Overhead,” Proc. Pacific Rim Int'l Symp. Dependable Computing, 2006.
[5] B. Charron-Bost and A. Schiper, “The Heard-of Model: Computing in Distributed Systems with Benign Faults,” Distributed Computing, vol. 22, pp. 49-71, 2009.
[6] P. Dutta, R. Guerraoui, and I. Keidar, “The Overhead of Consensus Failure Recovery,” Distributed Computing, vol. 19, nos. 5/6, pp. 373-386, Apr. 2007.
[7] P. Dutta, R. Guerraoui, and L. Lamport, “How Fast Can Eventual Synchrony Lead to Consensus,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN '05), pp. 22-27, 2005.
[8] C. Dwork, N. Lynch, and L. Stockmeyer, “Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony,” J. ACM, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 288-323, Apr. 1988.
[9] M.J. Fischer, N.A. Lynch, and M.S. Paterson, “Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process,” J. ACM, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 374-382, Apr. 1985.
[10] E. Gafni, “Round-by-Round Fault Detectors (Extended Abstract): Unifying Synchrony and Asynchrony,” Proc. 16th Ann. ACM Symp. Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC '98), pp. 143-152, 1998.
[11] I. Keidar and A. Shraer, “Timeliness, Failure-Detectors, and Consensus Performance,” Proc. 25th Ann. ACM Symp. Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC '06), pp. 169-178, 2006.
[12] L. Lamport, “The Part-Time Parliament,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 133-169, May 1998.
[13] L. Lamport, “Fast Paxos,” Technical Report MSR-TR-2005-12, Microsoft Research, 2005.
[14] R.D. Prisco, B. Lampson, and N. Lynch, “Revisiting the Paxos Algorithm,” Proc. 11th Int'l Workshop Distributed Algorithms (WDAG '97), pp. 111-125, 1997.
[15] N. Santoro and P. Widmayer, “Time is Not a Healer,” Proc. Sixth Ann. Symp. Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS '89), pp. 304-313, Feb. 1989.
[16] A. Schiper, “Early Consensus in an Asynchronous System with a Weak Failure Detector,” Distributed Computing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 149-157, Apr. 1997.
35 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool