Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access August 25, 2018

On synchrony in dynamic distributed systems

  • Francesc D. Muñoz-Escoí EMAIL logo and Rubén de Juan-Marín
From the journal Open Computer Science

Abstract

Many modern distributed services are deployed in dynamic systems. Cloud services are an example. They are expected to provide service to a potentially huge amount of users and may require a wide geographical deployment in multiple data centres. Their service processes vary in volume in accordance with workload variations, showing an adaptive behaviour in order to minimise economical costs. Dynamic distributed systems may be classifed considering two axes: (a) the number of processes that compose the system, and (b) the diameter of the networking graph that interconnects those processes. Other important features of dynamic systems can be derived from these two characteristics, e.g., their attainable synchrony. We analyse the level of synchrony that may be achieved in each dynamic system class and revise the existing techniques for transforming an initially asynchronous large dynamic system into another one with a higher synchrony level. With this, a larger set of problems may be handled in dynamic distributed systems. This facilitates the implementation and provision of additional services in those systems.

References

[1] Traiger I. L., Gray J.,Galtieri C. A., Lindsay B. G., Transactions and consistency in distributed database systems, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1982, 7(3), 323-34210.1145/319732.319734Search in Google Scholar

[2] Androutsellis-Theotokis S., Spinellis D., A survey of peer-topeer content distribution technologies, ACM Computing Surveys, 2004, 36(4), 335-37110.1145/1041680.1041681Search in Google Scholar

[3] Ruiz P., Bouvry P., Survey on broadcast algorithms for mobile ad hoc networks, ACM Computing Surveys, 2015, 48(1), 8:1-8:3510.1145/2786005Search in Google Scholar

[4] Muñoz-Escoí F. D., Bernabéu-Aubán J. M., A survey on elasticitymanagement in PaaS systems, Computing, 2017, 99(7), 617- 65610.1007/s00607-016-0507-8Search in Google Scholar

[5] Gubbi J., Buyya R., Marusic S., Palaniswami M., Internet of things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions, Future Generation Comp. Syst., 2013, 29(7), 1645-166010.1016/j.future.2013.01.010Search in Google Scholar

[6] Baldoni R., Bertier M., Raynal M., Tucci-Piergiovanni S., Looking for a definition of dynamic distributed systems, In: 9th International Conference on Parallel Computing Technologies (PaCT), LNCS, Springer, 2007, 4671, 1-1410.1007/978-3-540-73940-1_1Search in Google Scholar

[7] Merritt M., Taubenfeld G., Computing with infinitely many processes, In: 14th International Conference on Distributed Computing (DISC), LNCS, Springer, 2000, 1914, 164-17810.1007/3-540-40026-5_11Search in Google Scholar

[8] Aguilera M. K., A pleasant stroll through the land of infinitely many creatures, SIGACT News, 2004, 35(2), 36-5910.1145/992287.992298Search in Google Scholar

[9] Dolev D., Dwork C., Stockmeyer L. J., On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus, Journal of the ACM, 1987, 34(1), 77-9710.1145/7531.7533Search in Google Scholar

[10] Fischer M. J., Lynch N. A., Paterson M., Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process, Journal of the ACM, 1985, 32(2), 374-38210.1145/3149.214121Search in Google Scholar

[11] Welch J. L., Simulating synchronous processors, Information and Computation, 1987, 74(2), 159-17010.1016/0890-5401(87)90029-0Search in Google Scholar

[12] Dwork C., Lynch N. A., Stockmeyer L. J., Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony, Journal of the ACM, 1988, 35(2), 288-32310.1145/42282.42283Search in Google Scholar

[13] Gupta I., Kermarrec A. M., Ganesh A. J., Efficient epidemic-style protocols for reliable and scalable multicast, In: Proceedings of 21st IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), IEEE-CS Press, 2002, 180-189Search in Google Scholar

[14] Fich F., Ruppert E., Hundreds of impossibility results for distributed computing, Distributed Computing, 2003, 16(2-3), 121- 16310.1007/s00446-003-0091-ySearch in Google Scholar

[15] Rodrigues L., Veríssimo P., Causal separators for large-scale multicast communication, In: Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 1995, 83-91Search in Google Scholar

[16] Baldoni R., Friedman R., van Renesse R., The hierarchical daisy architecture for causal delivery, In: Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 1997, 570-577Search in Google Scholar

[17] Johnson S., Jahanian F., Shah J., The inter-group router approach to scalable group composition, In: Proceedings 19th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 1999, 4-14Search in Google Scholar

[18] de Juan-Marín R., Cholvi V., Jiménez E., Muñoz-Escoí F. D., Parallel interconnection of broadcast systems with multiple FIFO channels, In: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems (OTM 2009), LNCS, Springer, 2009, 5870, 449-46610.1007/978-3-642-05148-7_35Search in Google Scholar

[19] de Juan-Marín R., Decker H., Armendáriz-Íñigo J. E., Bernabéu- Aubán J. M.,Muñoz-Escoí F. D., Scalability approaches for causal multicast: a survey, Computing, 2016, 98(9), 923-94710.1007/s00607-015-0479-0Search in Google Scholar

[20] Fernández A., Jiménez E., Cholvi V., On the interconnection of causal memory systems, In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), ACM Press, 2000, 163-17010.1145/343477.343540Search in Google Scholar

[21] Attiya H., Friedman R., Limitations of fast consistency conditions for distributed shared memories, Information Processing Letters, 1996, 57(5), 243-24810.1016/0020-0190(96)00007-5Search in Google Scholar

[22] Álvarez Á., Arévalo S., Cholvi V., Fernández A., Jiménez E., On the interconnection of message passing systems, Information Processing Letters, 2008, 105(6), 249-25410.1016/j.ipl.2007.09.006Search in Google Scholar

[23] Mostéfaoui A., Raynal M., Travers C., Patterson S., Agrawal D., El Abbadi A., From static distributed systems to dynamic systems, In: 24th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS’05), IEEE-CS Press, 2005, 109-118Search in Google Scholar

[24] Bawa M., Gionis A., Garcia-Molina H., Motwani R., The price of validity in dynamic networks, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 2007, 73(3), 245-26410.1016/j.jcss.2006.10.007Search in Google Scholar

[25] Tucci-Piergiovanni S., Baldoni R., Eventual leader election in infinite arrival message-passing system modelwith bounded concurrency, In: 8th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC), 2010, 127-13410.1109/EDCC.2010.24Search in Google Scholar

[26] Chandra T. D., Toueg S., Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems, Journal of the ACM, 1996, 43(2), 225-26710.1145/226643.226647Search in Google Scholar

[27] Larrea M., Fernández A., Arévalo S., On the implementation of unreliable failure detectors in partially synchronous systems, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2004, 53(7), 815-82810.1109/TC.2004.33Search in Google Scholar

[28] Jiménez E., Arévalo S., Fernández A., Implementing unreliable failure detectors with unknown membership, Information Processing Letters, 2006, 100(2), 60-6310.1016/j.ipl.2006.05.009Search in Google Scholar

[29] Chandra T. D., Hadzilacos V., Toueg S., The weakest failure detector for solving consensus, Journal of the ACM, 1996, 43(4), 685-72210.1145/234533.234549Search in Google Scholar

[30] Aguilera M. K., Delporte-Gallet C., Fauconnier H., Toueg S., On implementing omega with weak reliability and synchrony assumptions, In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC’03), ACM Press, 2003, 306-31410.1145/872035.872081Search in Google Scholar

[31] Cavin D., Sasson Y., Schiper A., Consensus with unknown participants or fundamental self-organization, In: 3rd International Conference on Ad-Hoc, Mobile, and Wireless Networks (ADHOCNOW), 2004, 135-14810.1007/978-3-540-28634-9_11Search in Google Scholar

[32] Cavin D., Sasson Y., Schiper A., Reaching agreement with unknown participants in mobile self-organized networks in spite of process crashes, Technical report IC/2005/026, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2005Search in Google Scholar

[33] Greve F., Tixeuil S., Knowledge connectivity vs. synchrony requirements for fault-tolerant agreement in unknown networks, In: 37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’07), 2007, 82-9110.1109/DSN.2007.61Search in Google Scholar

[34] Alchieri E. A. P., Bessani A. N., da Silva Fraga J., Greve F., Byzantine consensus with unknown participants, In: 12th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS), 2008, 22-4010.1007/978-3-540-92221-6_4Search in Google Scholar

[35] Alchieri E. A. P., Bessani A., Greve F., da Silva Fraga J., Knowledge connectivity requirements for solving Byzantine consensus with unknown participants, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2018, 15(2), 246-25910.1109/TDSC.2016.2548460Search in Google Scholar

[36] Kihlstrom K. P., Moser L. E., Melliar-Smith P. M., Byzantine fault detectors for solving consensus, The Computer Journal, 2003, 46(1), 16-35.10.1093/comjnl/46.1.16Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-02-22
Accepted: 2018-07-10
Published Online: 2018-08-25

© by Francesc D. Muñoz-Escoí and Rubén de Juan-Marín, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Downloaded on 21.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/comp-2018-0014/html
Scroll to top button