Scribd
Upload
13 views14 pages

4.2.1. Problem Definition

Uploaded by

K Divi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views14 pages

4.2.1. Problem Definition

Uploaded by

K Divi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 14

CS3551 DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING

III Year –CSE


Regulation 2021
Department Computer Science & Engineering
Ramco Institute of Technology

1
UNIT IV

4.2. Consensus and Agreement


Algorithm
4.2.2. Overview of Results
Source:
Ajay D Kshemkalyani & Mukesh Singhal (2010).
Distributed Computing: Principles, Algorithms and
Systems. Cambridge University Press

2
TOPICS
4.1. Consensus and Agreement Algorithm
 4.1.1. Problem Definition
 4.1.2. Overview of Results
 4.1.3.Agreement in Failure- free system
 4.1.4. Agreement in Synchronous system with failure
4.2. Checkpointing and Rollback Recovery
 4.2.1.Introdution
 4.2.2. Background and Definitions
 4.2.3. Issues in Failure Recovery
 4.2.4. Checkpoint based Recovery
 4.2.5. Log based roll back Recovery
 4.2.6. Coordinated Checkpointing Algorithm
 4.2.7. Algorithm for asynchronous check pointing and
Recovery

3
CONSENSUS AND AGREEMENT
4.1.1. Problem Definition

Agreement among the processes in a


distributed system is a fundamental
requirement.
Many forms of coordination require the
processes to exchange information to
negotiate with one another and eventually
reach a common understanding or
agreement.
Example,
Commit decision in database systems,
wherein the processes collectively decide
whether to commit or abort a transaction
4
that they participate in
4.1.1. Problem Definition- Assumption

System Model
Agreement problems have been studied
under the following system model:
N processor in the system with at most m of
them being faulty.
Processors can exchange message directly.
Receiver knows the identity of the sender
Communication medium is reliable:
Messages are delivered without error.

5
 Failure models:
 Some of the processes may be faulty in distributed systems.
 A faulty process can behave in any manner allowed by the
failure model assumed.
 Some of the well known failure models includes fail-stop,
send omission and receive omission, and Byzantine failures.
 Fail stop model: a process may crash in the middle of a
step, which could be the execution of a local operation or
processing of a message for a send or receive event. It may
send a message to only a subset of the destination set
before crashing.
 Byzantine failure model: a process may behave
arbitrarily.
 The choice of the failure model determines the feasibility
and complexity of solving consensus.
6
 Synchronous/asynchronous communication:
 If a failure-prone process chooses to send a message to
process but fails, then intended process cannot detect
the non-arrival of the message.
 A consensus algorithm is a process that achieves
agreement on a single data value among distributed
processes or systems.
 In a synchronous system, a unsent message scenario can
be identified by the intended recipient, at the end of the
round.
 The intended recipient can deal with the non-arrival of
the expected message by assuming the arrival of a
message containing some default data, and then
proceeding with the next round of the algorithm.

7
Network connectivity:
The system has full logical connectivity, i.e.,
each process can communicate with any other
by direct message passing.
Sender identification:
 A process that receives a message always
knows the identity of the sender process.
When multiple messages are expected from the
same sender in a single round, a scheduling
algorithm is employed that sends these
messages in sub-rounds, so that each message
sent within the round can be uniquely identified.
8
Channel reliability:
The channels are reliable, and only the processes
may fail.
Authenticated vs. non-authenticated messages:
With unauthenticated messages, when a faulty
process relays a message to other processes
When a process receive a message, it has no way
to verify its authenticity. This is known as un
authenticated message or oral message or an
unsigned message
Agreement variable:
The agreement variable may be boolean or
multivalued, and need not be an integer.
 This simplifying assumption does not affect the
results for other data types, but helps in the
9 abstraction while presenting the algorithms.
System assumption

Agreement variable- Agreement variable may be boolean or multivalues and need


not to be integer

10
4.2.1. Problem Definition- Byzantine
Problem

A simple example of Byzantine


behavior is shown in Figure.
 Four generals are shown, and a
consensus decision is to be
reached about a boolean value.
 The various generals are conveying
potentially misleading values of the
decision variable to the other
generals, which results in
confusion.
 In the face of such Byzantine
behavior, the challenge is to
determine whether it is possible to
reach agreement, and if so under
what conditions.
 If agreement is reachable, then
protocols to reach it need to be
devised.
11
4.1.1. Problem Definition- Byzantine
Problem- Contd…
 Before studying algorithms to solve the agreement problem, we
first define the problem formally.
 The Byzantine agreement problem requires a designated
process, called the source process, with an initial value, to reach
agreement with the other processes about its initial value,
subject to the following conditions:
 Agreement: All non-faulty processes must agree on the same
value.
 Validity: If the source process is non-faulty, then the agreed upon
value by all the non-faulty processes must be the same as the initial
value of the source.
 Termination: Each non-faulty process must eventually decide on a
value.
There are two other popular flavors of the Byzantine
agreement problem:
 Consensus problem
 Interactive consistency problem.

12
4.1.1. Problem Definition- Byzantine Problem-
Consensus problem

The consensus problem differs from the


Byzantine agreement problem in that each
process has an initial value and all the correct
processes must agree on a single value.
Formally:
 Agreement: All non-faulty processes must agree
on the same (single) value.
 Validity: If all the non-faulty processes have the
same initial value, then the agreed upon value by
all the non-faulty processes must be that same
value.
 Termination: Each non-faulty process must
eventually decide on a value.
13
4.1.1. Problem Definition- Byzantine Problem-
Interactive consistency problem.

 The interactive consistency problem differs from the


Byzantine agreement problem in that each process
has an initial value, and all the correct processes
must agree upon a set of values, with one value for
each process.
 The formal specification is as follows:
 Agreement :All non-faulty processes must agree on
the same array of values A[v1… vn.]
 Validity: If process i is non-faulty and its initial value is
vi, then all nonfaulty processes agree on vi as the ith
element of the array A. If process j is faulty, then the
non-faulty processes can agree on any value for Aj.
 Termination: Each non-faulty process must eventually
decide on the array A.

14

You might also like