TY - GEN
T1 - A wealth of sub-consensus deterministic objects
AU - Daian, Eli
AU - Losa, Giuliano
AU - Afek, Yehuda
AU - Gafni, Eli
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Eli Daian, Giuliano Losa, Yehuda Afek, and Eli Gafni.
PY - 2018/10/1
Y1 - 2018/10/1
N2 - The consensus hierarchy classifies shared an object according to its consensus number, which is the maximum number of processes that can solve consensus wait-free using the object. The question of whether this hierarchy is precise enough to fully characterize the synchronization power of deterministic shared objects was open until 2016, when Afek et al. showed that there is an infinite hierarchy of deterministic objects, each weaker than the next, which is strictly between i and i + 1-processors consensus, for i ≥ 2. For i = 1, the question whether there exist a deterministic object whose power is strictly between read-write and 2-processors consensus, remained open. We resolve the question positively by exhibiting an infinite hierarchy of simple deterministic objects which are equivalent to set-consensus tasks, and thus are stronger than read-write registers, but they cannot implement consensus for two processes. Still our paper leaves a gap with open questions.
AB - The consensus hierarchy classifies shared an object according to its consensus number, which is the maximum number of processes that can solve consensus wait-free using the object. The question of whether this hierarchy is precise enough to fully characterize the synchronization power of deterministic shared objects was open until 2016, when Afek et al. showed that there is an infinite hierarchy of deterministic objects, each weaker than the next, which is strictly between i and i + 1-processors consensus, for i ≥ 2. For i = 1, the question whether there exist a deterministic object whose power is strictly between read-write and 2-processors consensus, remained open. We resolve the question positively by exhibiting an infinite hierarchy of simple deterministic objects which are equivalent to set-consensus tasks, and thus are stronger than read-write registers, but they cannot implement consensus for two processes. Still our paper leaves a gap with open questions.
KW - And phrases shared memory
KW - Distributed algorithms
KW - Set consensus
KW - Wait-free
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059640892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2018.17
DO - 10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2018.17
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontobookanthology.conference???
AN - SCOPUS:85059640892
T3 - Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, LIPIcs
BT - 32nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing, DISC 2018
A2 - Schmid, Ulrich
A2 - Widder, Josef
PB - Schloss Dagstuhl- Leibniz-Zentrum fur Informatik GmbH, Dagstuhl Publishing
T2 - 32nd International Symposium on Distributed Computing, DISC 2018
Y2 - 15 October 2018 through 19 October 2018
ER -