同步共识协议中分歧的概率分析

Negin Fathollahnejad, E. Villani, R. Pathan, R. Barbosa, J. Karlsson
{"title":"同步共识协议中分歧的概率分析","authors":"Negin Fathollahnejad, E. Villani, R. Pathan, R. Barbosa, J. Karlsson","doi":"10.1109/EDCC.2014.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a probabilistic analysis of disagreement for a family of simple synchronous consensus algorithms aimed at solving the 1-of-n selection problem in presence of unrestricted communication failures. In this problem, a set of n nodes are to select one common value among n proposed values. There are two possible outcomes of each node's selection process: decide to select a value or abort. We have disagreement if some nodes select the same value while other nodes decide to abort. Previous research has shown that it is impossible to guarantee agreement among the nodes subjected to an unbounded number of message losses. Our aim is to find decision algorithms for which the probability of disagreement is as low as possible. In this paper, we investigate two different decision criteria, one optimistic and one pessimistic. We assume two communication failure models, symmetric and asymmetric. For symmetric communication failures, we present the closed-form expressions for the probability of disagreement. For asymmetric failures, we analyse the algorithm using a probabilistic model checking tool. Our results show that the choice of decision criterion significantly influences the probability of disagreement for the 1-of-n selection algorithm. The optimistic decision criterion shows a lower probability of disagreement compare to the pessimistic one when the probability of message loss is less than 30% to 70%. On the other hand, the optimistic decision criterion has in general a higher maximum probability of disagreement compared to the pessimistic criterion.","PeriodicalId":364377,"journal":{"name":"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Probabilistic Analysis of Disagreement in Synchronous Consensus Protocols\",\"authors\":\"Negin Fathollahnejad, E. Villani, R. Pathan, R. Barbosa, J. Karlsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/EDCC.2014.26\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper presents a probabilistic analysis of disagreement for a family of simple synchronous consensus algorithms aimed at solving the 1-of-n selection problem in presence of unrestricted communication failures. In this problem, a set of n nodes are to select one common value among n proposed values. There are two possible outcomes of each node's selection process: decide to select a value or abort. We have disagreement if some nodes select the same value while other nodes decide to abort. Previous research has shown that it is impossible to guarantee agreement among the nodes subjected to an unbounded number of message losses. Our aim is to find decision algorithms for which the probability of disagreement is as low as possible. In this paper, we investigate two different decision criteria, one optimistic and one pessimistic. We assume two communication failure models, symmetric and asymmetric. For symmetric communication failures, we present the closed-form expressions for the probability of disagreement. For asymmetric failures, we analyse the algorithm using a probabilistic model checking tool. Our results show that the choice of decision criterion significantly influences the probability of disagreement for the 1-of-n selection algorithm. The optimistic decision criterion shows a lower probability of disagreement compare to the pessimistic one when the probability of message loss is less than 30% to 70%. On the other hand, the optimistic decision criterion has in general a higher maximum probability of disagreement compared to the pessimistic criterion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":364377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/EDCC.2014.26\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EDCC.2014.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文对一类简单同步一致性算法进行了不一致的概率分析,以解决存在无限制通信故障时的1 of n选择问题。在这个问题中,一组n个节点要从n个建议值中选择一个公共值。每个节点的选择过程有两种可能的结果:决定选择一个值或中止。如果一些节点选择相同的值,而其他节点决定中止,则会产生分歧。先前的研究表明,不可能保证节点之间的协议受到无限数量的消息丢失。我们的目标是找到分歧概率尽可能低的决策算法。在本文中,我们研究了两种不同的决策准则,一个乐观和一个悲观。我们假设两种通信故障模型,对称和非对称。对于对称通信失败,我们给出了不一致概率的封闭表达式。对于非对称故障,我们使用概率模型检查工具来分析算法。我们的研究结果表明,决策准则的选择对1-of-n选择算法的不一致概率有显著影响。当消息丢失的概率小于30% ~ 70%时,乐观决策准则的不一致概率比悲观决策准则的低。另一方面,与悲观决策标准相比,乐观决策标准通常具有更高的最大分歧概率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On Probabilistic Analysis of Disagreement in Synchronous Consensus Protocols
This paper presents a probabilistic analysis of disagreement for a family of simple synchronous consensus algorithms aimed at solving the 1-of-n selection problem in presence of unrestricted communication failures. In this problem, a set of n nodes are to select one common value among n proposed values. There are two possible outcomes of each node's selection process: decide to select a value or abort. We have disagreement if some nodes select the same value while other nodes decide to abort. Previous research has shown that it is impossible to guarantee agreement among the nodes subjected to an unbounded number of message losses. Our aim is to find decision algorithms for which the probability of disagreement is as low as possible. In this paper, we investigate two different decision criteria, one optimistic and one pessimistic. We assume two communication failure models, symmetric and asymmetric. For symmetric communication failures, we present the closed-form expressions for the probability of disagreement. For asymmetric failures, we analyse the algorithm using a probabilistic model checking tool. Our results show that the choice of decision criterion significantly influences the probability of disagreement for the 1-of-n selection algorithm. The optimistic decision criterion shows a lower probability of disagreement compare to the pessimistic one when the probability of message loss is less than 30% to 70%. On the other hand, the optimistic decision criterion has in general a higher maximum probability of disagreement compared to the pessimistic criterion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Increasing Dependability of Component-Based Software Systems by Online Failure Prediction (Short Paper) A Study of the Impact of Bit-Flip Errors on Programs Compiled with Different Optimization Levels On a Modeling Approach to Analyze Resilience of a Smart Grid Infrastructure Towards a Dependability Control Center for Large Software Landscapes (Short Paper) Speculative Software Modification and its Use in Securing SOUP
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1