1 / 18

Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization

Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization. Stéphane Devismes (CNRS, LRI, France) Sébastien Tixeuil (LIP6-CNRS & INRIA, France) Masafumi Yamashita (Kyushu University, Japan). Introduction. (Deterministic) Self-Stabilization:

chough
Download Presentation

Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization StéphaneDevismes(CNRS, LRI, France) Sébastien Tixeuil (LIP6-CNRS & INRIA, France) Masafumi Yamashita (Kyushu University, Japan)

  2. Introduction • (Deterministic) Self-Stabilization: • « A protocol P is self-stabilizing if, starting from any initial configuration, every execution of P eventually reaches a point from which its behaviour is correct » • Advantages: • Tolerance to any transient fault • No hypothesis on the nature or extent of faults • Recovers from the effects of those faults in a unified manner ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  3. Definition: Closure + Convergence Closure Legitimate States Illegitimate states Convergence States of the system ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  4. Execution of a Self-Stabilizing Algorithm … S P S ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  5. Drawbacks of Self-Stabilization • May make use of a large amount of resources • May be difficult to design and to prove • Could be unable to solve some fundamental problems ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  6. Weaker Properties • Probabilistic Stabilization [Israeli and Jalfon, PODC’90]: probabilistic convergence • Pseudo stabilization [Burns et al, WSS’89]: always a correct suffix • K-stabilization [Beauquier et al, PODC’98]: at most K faults in the initial configuration • Weak-Stabilization [Gouda, WSS’01]: from any configuration, there is at least one possible execution which converges ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  7. Weak-Stabilization … S P S ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  8. S P S Probabilistic Stabilization The expected time before reaching a green segment is finite ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  9. Problem centric point of view • Probabilistic Stabilization • Pseudo-Stabilization • K-Stabilization • Open question: Weak-Stabilization > Self-stabilization E.g. graph coloring, token passing, alternating bit, … ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  10. Our Results • From a problem centric point of view, Weak-Stabilization > Self-Stabilization • Weak-Stabilization & Probabilistic Stabilization are strongly connected ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  11. Weak > Self (Problem centric point of view) • Two examples: • Token Circulation in unidirectional rings under a distributed scheduler • Leader Election in anonymous tree under a distributed scheduler (2 algorithms) ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  12. Impossibility for Leader Election(under a distributed scheduler) Synchronous Execution ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  13. (1) (2) (3) Weak-Stabilizing Leader Election • Using a parent pointer Par  Neig  {}, 3 cases: ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  14. Why Weak is easier than Self ? • Scheduler in Self-Stabilization: adversary • Scheduler in Weak-Stabilization: friend • Synchronous scheduler: Weak = Self ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  15. Observation: Weak vs. Probabilistic If a protocol P has a finite number of configurations, then P is weak-stabilizing iff P is probabilistically stabilizing under a randomized scheduler OutlineExecution: random walk in a finite set (of configurations) ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  16. Problem: Synchronous Case Weak-Stalibiling under a distributed scheduler Random Schedule (Asynchronous) Synchronous Probabilistically Stabilizing In any case Not Probabilistically Stabilizing in the general case Solution: When activated, tosse a coin before moving ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  17. Conclusion • From the problem centric point of view, Weak-Stabilization > Self-Stabilization • Weak-Stabilization = Probabilistic Stabilization if the scheduler is probabilistic and the set of configurations is finite • Interesting in practical settings: • Weak-Stabilization is easier to design than probabilistic stabilization • In real systems, the scheduler behaves randomly • Can be easily transformed to support the synchronous scheduler • Perspective: evaluating a expected convergence time ICDCS'08, Beijing, China

  18. Thank you

More Related