ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Tight lower and upper bounds for some distributed algorithms for a complete network of processors
Full text PdfPdf (781 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing archive
Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing table of contents
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Pages: 199 - 207  
Year of Publication: 1984
ISBN:0-89791-143-1
Authors
Sponsors
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 18,   Citation Count: 25
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800222.806747
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Distributed algorithms for complete asynchronous networks of processors (i.e., networks where each pair of processors is connected by a communication line) are discussed. The main result is O(nlogn) lower and upper bounds on the number of messages required by any algorithm in a given class of distributed algorithms for such networks. This class includes algorithms for problems like finding a leader or constructing a spanning tree (as far as we know, all known algorithms for those problems may require O(n2) messages when applied to complete networks). O(n2) bounds for other problems, like constructing a maximal matching or a Hamiltonian circuit are also given. In proving the lower bound we are counting the edges which carry messages during the executions of the algorithms (ignoring the actually number of messages carried by each edge). Interestingly, this number is shown to be of the same order of magnitude of the total number of messages needed by these algorithms. In the upper bounds, the length of any message is at most log2[4mlog2n] bits, where m is the maximum identity of a node in the network. One implication of our results is that finding a spanning tree in a complete network is easier than finding a minimum weight spanning tree in such a network, which may require O(n2) messages.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
J. E. Burns, A formal model for message passing systems, TR-91, Indiana University, September 1980.
 
2
D. Dolev, M. Klawe and M. Rodeh, An O(nlogn) unidirectional distributed algorithm for extrema finding in a circle, J. of Algorithms, 3, 1982, pp. 245-260.
 
3
R. G. Gallager, Choosing a leader in a network, unpublished memorandum, M.I.T.
4
5
 
6
E. Korach, S. Moran and S. Zaks, Finding a Minimum Spanning Tree can be harder than finding a spanning tree in a distributed network, TR #294, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion, Israel (October 1983).
7
8
 
9
N. Santoro, On the message complexity of distributed systems, SCS-TR-13, School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (1982).

CITED BY  25