1 / 35

Correctness of Gossip-Based Membership under Message Loss

Correctness of Gossip-Based Membership under Message Loss. Maxim Gurevich Idit Keidar Technion. The Setting. Many nodes – n 10,000s, 100,000s, 1,000,000s, … Come and go Churn Fully connected network Like the Internet Every joining node knows some others (Initial) Connectivity.

onawa
Download Presentation

Correctness of Gossip-Based Membership under Message Loss

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. Correctness of Gossip-Based Membership under Message Loss Maxim Gurevich Idit Keidar Technion

  2. The Setting • Many nodes – n • 10,000s, 100,000s, 1,000,000s, … • Come and go • Churn • Fully connected network • Like the Internet • Every joining node knows some others • (Initial) Connectivity

  3. Membership: Each node needs to know some live nodes • Each node has a view • Set of node ids • Supplied to the application • Constantly refreshed • Typical size – log n

  4. Applications • Applications • Gossip-based algorithm • Unstructured overlay networks • Gathering statistics • Work best with random node sample • Gossip algorithms converge fast • Overlay networks are robust, good expanders • Statistics are accurate

  5. Modeling Membership Views • Modeled as a directed graph w y u v

  6. Modeling Protocols: Graph Transformations • View is used for maintenance • Example: push protocol w z u v

  7. Desirable Properties? • Randomness • View should include random samples • Holy grail for samples: IID • Each sample uniformly distributed • Each sample independent of other samples • Avoid spatial dependencies among view entries • Avoid correlations between nodes • Good load balance among nodes

  8. What About Churn? • Views should constantly evolve • Remove failed nodes, add joining ones • Views should evolve to IID from anystate • Minimize temporal dependencies • Dependence on the past should decay quickly • Useful for application requiring fresh samples

  9. Global Markov Chain • A global state – all n views in the system • A protocol action – transition between global states • Global Markov Chain G u v u v

  10. Defining Properties Formally • Small views • Bounded dout(u) • Load balance • Low variance of din(u) • From any starting state, eventually(In the stationary distribution of MC on G) • Uniformity • Pr(v  u.view) = Pr(w  u.view) • Spatial independence • Pr(v  u. view| y w. view) = Pr(v  u. view) • Perfect uniformity + spatial independence  load balance

  11. Temporal Independence • Time to obtain views independent of the past • From an expected state • Refresh rate in the steady state • Would have been much longer had we considered starting from arbitrary state • O(n14) [Cooper09]

  12. Existing Work: Practical Protocols Push protocol • Tolerates asynchrony, message loss • Studied only empirically  • Good load balance [Lpbcast, Jelasity et al 07] • Fast decay of temporal dependencies [Jelasity et al 07] • Induce spatial dependence  w w z z v v u u

  13. Existing Work: Analysis w z Shuffle protocol • Analyzed theoretically [Allavena et al 05, Mahlmann et al 06] • Uniformity, load balance, spatial independence  • Weak bounds (worst case) on temporal independence  • Unrealistic assumptions – hard to implement  • Atomic actions with bi-directional communication • No message loss * u v

  14. Our Contribution : Bridge This Gap • A practical protocol • Tolerates message loss, churn, failures • No complex bookkeeping for atomic actions • Formally prove the desirable properties • Including under message loss

  15. Send & Forget Membership • The best of push and shuffle • Some view entries may be empty w u v

  16. S&F: Message Loss • Message loss • Or no empty entries in v’s view w w u v u v

  17. S&F: Compensating for Loss • Edges (view entries) disappear due to loss • Need to prevent views from emptying out • Keep the sent ids when too little ids in view • Push-like when views are too small w w u v u v

  18. S&F: Advantages over Other Protocols • No bi-directional communication • No complex bookkeeping • Tolerates message loss • Simple • Without unrealistic assumptions • Amenable to formal analysis Easy to implement

  19. Key Contribution: Analysis • Degree distribution • Closed-form approximation without loss • Degree Markov Chain with loss • Stationary distribution of MC on the global graph G • Uniformity • Spatial Independence • Temporal Independence • Hold even under (reasonable) message loss!

  20. Degree Distribution without loss • In all reachable graphs: • dout(u) + 2din(u) = const • Better than in a random graph – indegree bounded • Uniform stationary distribution on reachable states in G • Combinatorial approximation of degree distribution • The fraction of reachable graphs with specified node degree • Ignoring dependencies among nodes

  21. Degree Distribution without Loss: Results • Similar (better) to that of a random graph • Validated by a more accurate Markov model

  22. Setting Degree Thresholds to Compensate for Loss • Note: dout(u) + 2din(u) = const invariant no longer holds – indegree not bounded

  23. Key Contribution: Analysis • Degree distribution • Closed-form approximation without loss • Degree Markov Chain with loss • Stationary distribution of MC on the global graph G • Uniformity • Spatial Independence • Temporal Independence

  24. Degree Markov Chain • Given loss rate, degree thresholds, and degree distributions • Iteratively compute the stationary distribution … outdegree 0 2 4 6 … … State corresponding to isolated node 0 Transitions without loss … 1 … indegree Transitions due to loss 2 … … 3 …

  25. Results • Outdegree is bounded by the protocol • Decreases with increasing loss • Indegree is not bounded by the protocol • Still, its variance is low, even under loss • Typical overload at most 2x

  26. Key Contribution: Analysis • Degree distribution • Closed-form approximation without loss • Degree Markov Chain with loss • Stationary distribution of MC on the global graph G • Uniformity • Spatial Independence • Temporal Independence

  27. Uniformity • Simple! • Nodes are identical • Graphs where uv isomorphic to graphs where uw • Same probability in stationary distribution

  28. Key Contribution: Analysis • Degree distribution • Closed-form approximation without loss • Degree Markov Chain with loss • Stationary distribution of MC on the global graph G • Uniformity • Spatial Independence • Temporal Independence

  29. Decay of Spatial Dependencies w w • Assume initially > 2/3 independent  good expander • For uniform loss < 15%, dependencies decay faster than they are created … … u u v v u does not delete the sent ids

  30. Decay of Spatial Dependencies: Results • 1 – 2loss ratefraction of view entries are independent • E.g., for loss rate of 3%  more than 90% of entries are independent

  31. Key Contribution: Analysis • Degree distribution • Closed-form approximation without loss • Degree Markov Chain with loss • Stationary distribution of MC on the global graph G • Uniformity • Spatial Independence • Temporal Independence

  32. Temporal Independence • Start from expected state • Uniform and spatially independent views • High “expected conductance” of G • Short mixing time • While staying in the “good” component

  33. Temporal Independence: Results • Ids travel fast enough • Reach random nodes in O(log n)hops • Due to “sufficiently many” independent ids in views • Dependence on past views decays within O(log n  view size)time

  34. Conclusions • Formalized the desired properties of a membership protocol • Send & Forget protocol • Simple for both implementation and analysis • Analysis under message loss • Load balance • Uniformity • Spatial Independence • Temporal Independence

  35. Thank You

More Related