Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization

被引:2
|
作者
Devismes, Stephane [1 ]
Tixeuil, Sebastien [2 ]
Yamashita, Masafumi [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Grenoble 1, VERMA UMR 5104, Grenoble I, France
[2] Univ Paris 06, Sorbonne Univ, Paris, France
[3] IUF, Paris, France
关键词
Distributed systems; distributed algorithm; fault-tolerance; self-stabilization; weak stabilization; probabilistic self-stabilization; SCHEDULER;
D O I
10.1142/S0129054115500173
中图分类号
TP301 [理论、方法];
学科分类号
081202 ;
摘要
Self-stabilization is a strong property, which guarantees that a distributed system always resumes a correct behavior starting from an arbitrary initial state. Since it is a strong property, some problems cannot have self-stabilizing solutions. Weaker guarantees hence have been later introduced to cope with impossibility results, e.g, probabilistic self stabilization only guarantees probabilistic convergence to a correct, behavior, and weak stabilization only guarantees the possibility of convergence. In this paper, we investigate the relative power of self, probabilistic, and weak stabilization, with respect to the set of problems that can be solved. Weak stabilization is by definition stronger than self stabilization and probabilistic self-stabilization in that precise sense. We first show that weak stabilization allows to solve problems having no self-stabilizing solution. We then show that any finite state deterministic weak stabilizing algorithm to solve a problem under the strongly fair scheduler is always a probabilistic; self-stabilizing algorithm to solve the same problem under the randomized scheduler. Unfortunately, this good property does not hold in general for infinite state algorithms. We however show that for some classes of infinite state algorithms, this property holds. These results hint at more practical use of weak stabilizing algorithms, as they are easier to design and prove their correctness than their self stabilizing and probabilistic self stabilizing counterparts.
引用
收藏
页码:293 / 319
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Laparoscopic vs. abdominal vs. vaginal hysterectomy
    Mehra, S
    Bhat, V
    Mehra, G
    [J]. GYNAECOLOGICAL ENDOSCOPY, 1999, 8 (01) : 29 - 34
  • [22] LUSOPHONIA VS. LUSUTOPIA, MLA VS. MTA
    Beebee, Thomas O.
    [J]. COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES, 2013, 50 (02) : 211 - 218
  • [23] Objects vs. actions and nouns vs. verbs
    Druks, J
    Masterson, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLINGUISTICS, 2003, 16 (2-3) : 59 - 65
  • [24] Weak vs. strong: Multivalent interactions at the edge
    Huskens, Jurriaan
    [J]. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2013, 245
  • [25] SHI vs. Private or sufficient vs. well?
    Eckert, Georg
    [J]. KLINISCHE MONATSBLATTER FUR AUGENHEILKUNDE, 2012, 229 (08) : 765 - 765
  • [26] Autoimmunity vs. cancer: Predator vs. alien?
    Berens, Christian
    Lauber, Kirsten
    Herrmann, Martin
    [J]. AUTOIMMUNITY, 2013, 46 (05) : 287 - 293
  • [27] Endarterectomy vs. stenting vs. medical therapy
    Spence, J. David
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2016, 11 (05) : 500 - 501
  • [28] Anthropic fluctuations vs. weak anthropic principle
    Ćirković M.M.
    [J]. Foundations of Science, 2002, 7 (4) : 453 - 463
  • [29] Strong vs. weak approaches to systems development
    Vessey, I
    Glass, R
    [J]. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 1998, 41 (04) : 99 - 102
  • [30] What's in a Word? Just vs. Fair vs. Appropriate Earnings for Self and Others
    Adriaans, Jule
    Liebig, Stefan
    Sabbagh, Clara
    Jasso, Guillermina
    [J]. SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, 2021, 34 (04) : 397 - 427