Synchronization

Election Algorithms
 Election Algorithms
◆ Many distributed algorithms require one process to
act as coordinator, initiator, or otherwise perform a
special role.
◆ It does not matter who does it but one of them has to
be a coordinator.
◆ These algorithms will assume that each active process
has a unique priority id.
◆ In general, election algorithms attempt to locate the
process with the highest process number and
designate it as the coordinator. (could use network
addresses)
⬥ For simplicity we assume one process per machine
 Election Algorithms:
Election principles
▪ Any process can call for an election.
▪ A process can call for at most one election at a time.
▪ There could be concurrent calls for the same election.
▪ The result of an election does not depend on which process
calls for it.
▪ Processes involved in an election are called the “participants”
of the election.
▪ The non-failed process with the best election attribute value
(e.g., highest id or address, fastest cpu, etc.) is elected.
▪ A run of the election algorithm must always guarantee at the
end:
▪ Safety: Non-failed process selected has best attribute value
 Bully Algorithm
◆ Each process has a unique numerical ID

◆ Processes know the Ids and address of every other process

◆ Communication is assumed reliable

◆ Key Idea: select process with highest ID

◆ Process initiates election if it just recovered from failure or

if coordinator failed

◆ 3 message types: election, OK, I won

◆ Several processes can initiate an election simultaneously

 Election Algorithms:
Bully Algorithm
◆ When any process, P, notices that the
coordinator is no longer responding it initiates
an election:
⬥ P sends an election message to all processes
with higher id numbers
⬥ If no one responds, P wins the election and
becomes coordinator
⬥ If a higher process responds, it takes over.
Process P’s job is done
 Election Algorithms:
Bully Algorithm
◆ At any moment, a process can receive an
election message from one of its
lower-numbered colleagues.
◆ The receiver sends an OK back to the sender
and conducts its own election.
◆ Eventually only the bully process remains. The
bully announces victory to all processes in the
distributed group by sending a
COORDINATOR message
 Election Algorithms: Bully Algorithm, Example

◆ Process 4 notices 7 down.

◆ Process 4 holds an election.
◆ Process 5 and 6 respond, telling 4 to stop.
◆ Now 5 and 6 each hold an election.
 Election Algorithms: Bully Algorithm, Example

• Process 6 tells process 5 to stop.

■ Process 6 (the bully) wins and tells everyone.
■ If processes 7 comes up, starts elections again.
 Election Algorithms:
Ring Algorithm
◆ Nodes are physically or logically organized in a
ring.
◆ Nodes might not know the number of nodes in
the ring and what all of the IDs are; they only
know who their successor is.
◆ The ring can be unidirectional, in which case,
they only need to be able to send messages to
their clockwise neighbor.
 Election Algorithms: Ring Algorithm
◆ Any node that notices that the leader is not functioning,
changes his state to Election, starts an election message
containing his ID and sends it to his clockwise neighbor
◆ If a successor is down, the message is passed on to the
next successor.

3
0
electio
n
5
 Election Algorithms: Ring Algorithm
◆ As a message is passed on, the sender adds itself to the
list. When it gets back to the initiator, everyone had a
chance to make its presence known

◆ The initiator sends a coordinator message around the

ring containing a list of all living processes. The one with
the highest priority is elected as coordinator

election: 3
0 5

5
 Election Algorithms: Ring Algorithm
◆ When a node receives a “coordinator message”, he
records the ID of the new leader and changes state to
Normal, and forwards the message (unless he is the
leader).

◆ Variation has all ID’s in election token.

0 Electio 3
n
0,3,4,5
5
 Election Algorithms: Ring Algorithm, Example

• Even if two ELECTIONS start at once, everyone will pick the same
leader.
 Election Algorithms: Ring Algorithm, Example
Election: 2,
P1 P1 3,4,0,1 P1

P0 P2 P0 P2 P0 P2
Election: 2 Coord(4): 2

El P5 P5 P5
ec P3 P3 P3
tio P4 P4
n:
2,3 Election: 2,3
,4 P4 Coord(4): 2,3
2. P2 receives “election”, 3. P2 selects 4 and
1. P2 initiates election P4 dies announces the result
Coord(4) 2, Election: 2, Coord(3): 2,
P1 3,0,1 Election: Coord(3): P1 3,0,1
P1 3,0,1
2,3,0 2,3,0
P0 P2 P0 P2 P0 P2

Election: 2 Coord(3): 2
P5 P5 P5
P3 P3 P3
P4 P4 P4

4. P2 receives “Coord”, but Election: 2,3 Coord(3): 2,3

P4 is not included 5. P2 re-initiates election 6. P3 is finally elected
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ Traditional election algorithms are generally
based on assumptions that are not realistic in
wireless environments.
◆ For example, they assume that message
passing is reliable and that the topology of the
network does not change.
◆ These assumptions are false in most wireless
environments, especially those for mobile
adhoc networks.
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ Only few protocols for elections have been
developed that work in adhoc networks.
Vasudevan et al. (2004) propose a solution that
can handle failing nodes and partitioning
networks.
◆ An important property of their solution is that
the best leader can be elected rather than just a
random as was more or less the case in the
previously discussed solutions.
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ Consider a wireless ad hoc network. To elect a
leader, any node in the network, called the
source, can initiate an election by sending an
ELECTION message to its immediate
neighbors (i.e., the nodes in its range).
◆ When a node receives an ELECTION for the
first time, it designates the sender as its parent
and subsequently sends out an ELECTION
message to all its immediate neighbors, except
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ When a node receives an ELECTION message
from a node other than its parent, it merely
acknowledges the receipt.
◆ When node R has designated node Q as its
parent, it forwards the ELECTION message to
its immediate neighbors (excluding Q) and
waits for acknowledgments to come in before
acknowledging the ELECTION message from
Q. This waiting has an important consequence.
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ First, note that neighbors that have already
selected a parent will immediately respond to
R.
◆ If all neighbors already have a parent, R is a
leaf node and will be able to report back to Q
quickly. In doing so, it will also report
information such as its battery lifetime and
other resource capacities.
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ This information will later allow Q to compare
R's capacities to that of other downstream
nodes, and select the best eligible node for
leadership.
◆ Note: Q had sent an ELECTION message only
because its own parent P had done so as well.
In turn, when Q eventually acknowledges the
ELECTION message previously sent by P, it
will pass the most eligible node to P as well.
 Elections in Wireless
Environments
◆ In this way, the source will eventually get to
know which node is best to be selected as
leader after which it will broadcast this
information to all other nodes.
◆ When multiple elections are initiated, each
node will decide to join only one election. To
this end, each source tags its ELECTION
message with a unique identifier
Borrowed from Distributed
systems and paradigms 2nd
Edition by A.Tanenbaum
Mutual Exclusion
 Mutual Exclusion: Introduction
◆ Mutual exclusion is needed for restricting
access to a shared resource.
◆ We use semaphores, monitors and similar
constructs to enforce mutual exclusion on a
centralized system.
◆ We need the same capabilities on DS.
◆ As in the one processor case, we are interested
in safety (mutual exclusion), progress, and
bounded waiting (fairness).
 Mutual Exclusion:
Centralized Algorithm
◆ Assume a coordinator has been elected.
⬥ A process sends a message to the coordinator requesting
permission to enter a critical section. If no other process is
in the critical section, permission is granted.
⬥ If another process then asks permission to enter the same
critical region, the coordinator does not reply (Or, it sends
“permission denied”) and queues the request
⬥ When a process exits the critical section, it sends a message
to the coordinator.
⬥ The coordinator takes first entry off the queue and sends
that process a message granting permission to enter the
critical section.
 Mutual Exclusion: Centralized Algorithm

a) Process 1 asks the coordinator for permission to enter a

critical region. Permission is granted
b) Process 2 then asks permission to enter the same critical
region. The coordinator does not reply.
c) When process 1 exits the critical region, it tells the
coordinator, which then replies to 2
 Centralized Algorithm, Properties
◆ Simulates centralized lock using blocking calls
◆ Fair: requests are granted the lock in the order
they were received
◆ Simple: three messages per use of a critical
section (request, grant, release)
◆ Shortcomings:
⬥ Single point of failure
⬥ How do you detect a dead coordinator?
⬥ A process can not distinguish between “lock in use” from a

dead coordinator

⬥ No response from coordinator in either case

 Mutual Exclusion:Distributed Algorithm
• Ricart and Agrawala algorithm (1981) assumes there is a
mechanism for “totally ordering of all events” in the system
(e.g. Lamport’s algorithm) and a reliable message system.

1. A process wanting to enter critical sections (cs) sends a

message with (cs name, process id, current time) to
all processes (including itself).

2. When a process receives a cs request from another

process, it reacts based on its current state with respect to
the cs requested. There are three possible cases:
 Ricart and Agrawala algorithm
a) If the receiver is not in the cs and it does not want to enter
the cs, it sends an OK message to the sender.
b) If the receiver is in the cs, it does not reply and queues the
request.
c) If the receiver wants to enter the cs but has not yet, it
compares the timestamp of the incoming message with the
timestamp of its message sent to everyone. {The lowest
timestamp wins.} If the incoming timestamp is lower,
the receiver sends an OK message to the sender. If its own
timestamp is lower, the receiver queues the request and
sends nothing.
 Mutual Exclusion: Distributed Algorithm

◆ After a process sends out a request to enter

a cs, it waits for an OK from all the other
processes. When all are received, it enters
the cs.
◆ Upon exiting cs, it sends OK messages to all
processes on its queue for that cs and deletes
them from the queue.
 Mutual Exclusion: Distributed Algorithm

a) Two processes want to enter the same critical region at

the same moment.
b) Process 0 has the lowest timestamp, so it wins.
c) When process 0 is done, it sends an OK also, so 2 can
now enter the critical region.
 Mutual Exclusion: Distributed Algorithm,
Properties
◆ Fully decentralized
◆ N points of failure!
◆ All processes are involved in all decisions
⬥ Any overloaded process can become a
bottleneck
 Mutual Exclusion: Token Ring Algorithm

a) An unordered group of processes on a network.

b) A logical ring constructed in software.
• A process must have token to enter.
 Mutual Exclusion: Token Ring
Algorithm
◆ Assumptions:
◆ Processes are ordered in a ring.
◆ Communications are reliable and can be
limited to one direction.
◆ Size of ring can be unknown and each process
is only required to know his immediate
neighbor.
◆ A single token circulates around the ring (in
one direction only).
 Mutual Exclusion: Token Ring
Algorithm
◆ When a process has the token, it can enter the
CS at most once.
⬥ Then it must pass the token on.
◆ Only the process with the token can enter the
CS, thus Mutual Exclusion is ensured.
◆ Bounded waiting since the token circulates.
◆ Problems occur: If a token is lost, it must be
regenerated
 Mutual Exclusion: Algorithm Comparison

Messages per Delay before entry

Algorithm Problems
entry/exit (in message times)
Coordinator
Centralized 3 2
crash

Distributed 2(n–1) 2(n–1) Process crash

Lost token,
Token ring 1 to ∞ 0 to n – 1
process crash

◆ Centralized is the most efficient.

◆ Token ring efficient when many want to use critical
region.