Asynchronous consensus and broadcast protocols

ABSTRACT

A consensus protocol enables a system of n asynchronous processes, some of which are faulty, to reach agreement. There are two kinds of faulty processes: fail-stop processes that can only die and malicious processes that can also send false messages. The class of asynchronous systems with fair schedulers is defined, and consensus protocols that terminate with probability 1 for these systems are investigated. With fail-stop processes, it is shown that ⌈(n + 1)/2⌉ correct processes are necessary and sufficient to reach agreement. In the malicious case, it is shown that ⌈(2n + 1)/3⌉ correct processes are necessary and sufficient to reach agreement. This is contrasted with an earlier result, stating that there is no consensus protocol for the fail-stop case that always terminates within a bounded number of steps, even if only one process can fail. The possibility of reliable broadcast (Byzantine Agreement) in asynchronous systems is also investigated. Asynchronous Byzantine Agreement is defined, and it is shown that ⌈(2n + 1)/3⌉ correct processes are necessary and sufficient to achieve it.

REFERENCES

• 1: Michael Ben-Or, Another advantage of free choice (Extended Abstract): Completely asynchronous agreement protocols, Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, p.27-30, August 17-19, 1983, Montreal, Quebec, Canada [doi>10.1145/800221.806707]
• 2: DOLEV, D. Unanimity in an unknown and unreliable environment. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Nashville, Tenn., Oct.). IEEE, New York, 1981, pp. 159-168.
• 3: Michael J. Fischer , Nancy A. Lynch , Michael S. Paterson, Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.32 n.2, p.374-382, April 1985 [doi>10.1145/3149.214121]
• 4: ISAACSON, D. L., AND MADSEN, R. W Markov Chains Theory and Practice. Wiley, New York. 1976, pp. 89-100.
• 5: ITAI, A. AND RODEH, M. Symmetry breaking in distributive networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science (Nashville, Tenn. Oct.), IEEE, New York, 1981, pp. 150-158.
• 6: Leslie Lamport , Robert Shostak , Marshall Pease, The Byzantine Generals Problem, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.4 n.3, p.382-401, July 1982 [doi>10.1145/357172.357176]
• 7: M. Pease , R. Shostak , L. Lamport, Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.27 n.2, p.228-234, April 1980 [doi>10.1145/322186.322188]
• 8: Daniel Lehmann , Michael O. Rabin, On the advantages of free choice: a symmetric and fully distributed solution to the dining philosophers problem, Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.133-138, January 26-28, 1981, Williamsburg, Virginia [doi>10.1145/567532.567547]
• 9: Richard D. Schlichting , Fred B. Schneider, Fail-stop processors: an approach to designing fault-tolerant computing systems, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), v.1 n.3, p.222-238, August 1983 [doi>10.1145/357369.357371]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  B. Hardware
  B.4 INPUT/OUTPUT AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS
      B.4.3 Interconnections (subsystems)
          Subjects: Asynchronous/synchronous operation

Additional Classification:
  C. Computer Systems Organization

General Terms:
Algorithms, Performance, Reliability, Standardization, Theory, Verification