1 / 59

Self-stabilizing ( f , g )-Alliances with Safe Convergence

Self-stabilizing ( f , g )-Alliances with Safe Convergence. Fabienne Carrier Ajoy K. Datta Stéphane Devismes Lawrence L. Larmore Yvan Rivierre. Co- Autors. Ajoy K. Datta & Lawrence L. Larmore. Fabienne Carrier & Yvan Rivierre. Roadmap. Safe convergence

van
Download Presentation

Self-stabilizing ( f , g )-Alliances with Safe Convergence

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. Self-stabilizing (f,g)-Alliances with Safe Convergence Fabienne Carrier Ajoy K. Datta Stéphane Devismes Lawrence L. Larmore YvanRivierre

  2. Co-Autors Ajoy K. Datta & Lawrence L. Larmore Fabienne Carrier & YvanRivierre SSS 2013, Osaka

  3. Roadmap • Safe convergence • The (f,g)-alliance problem • Contribution • Algorithm • Perspectives SSS 2013, Osaka

  4. Safe convergence SSS 2013, Osaka

  5. Pros and Cons of Self-Stabilization • Tolerate any finite number of transient faults • No initialization • Large-scale network • Self-organization in sensor network • Dynamicity • Topological change ≈ Transient fault • Tolerate onlytransient faults • Eventual safety • No stabilization detection SSS 2013, Osaka

  6. Pros and Cons of Self-Stabilization • Tolerate any finite number of transient faults • No initialization • Large-scale network • Self-organization in sensor network • Dynamicity • Topological change ≈ Transient fault • Tolerate onlytransient faults • Eventual safety • No stabilization detection SSS 2013, Osaka

  7. Related Work • Enhancing safety: • Fault-containment [Ghoshet al, PODC’96] • Superstabilization[Dolev & Herman, CJTCS’97] • Time-adaptive Self-stabilization [Kutten & Patt-Shamir, PODC’97] • Self-Stab + safe convergence [Kakugawa & Masuzawa, IPDPS’06] • Etc. SSS 2013, Osaka

  8. Back to self-stabilization SSS 2013, Osaka

  9. Back to self-stabilization No safety guarantee SSS 2013, Osaka

  10. Back to self-stabilization Ω(D) SSS 2013, Osaka

  11. Back to self-stabilization Are all illegitimate configurations identically bad ? SSS 2013, Osaka

  12. Back to self-stabilization Are all illegitimate configurations identically bad ? Of course, NO ! SSS 2013, Osaka

  13. Self-stabilization + Safe Convergence Really bad Not so bad good SSS 2013, Osaka

  14. Self-stabilization + Safe Convergence Quick convergence time SSS 2013, Osaka

  15. Self-stabilization + Safe Convergence • Optimal LC ⊆ feasable LC • Set of feasable LC: CLOSED • Set of optimal LC: CLOSED • Quick convergence to a feasable LC • (O(1) expected) • Convergence to an optimal LC SSS 2013, Osaka

  16. Self-stabilization + Safe Convergence: example [Kakugawa & Masuzawa, IPDPS’06] • Construction of a minimal dominating set • 1-round convergence to a dominating set • (not necessarily a minimal one) • Then,O(D)-rounds convergence to a MINIMAL dominating set • During this phase, all configurations contain a dominating set SSS 2013, Osaka

  17. The problem: (f,g)-Alliance[Douradoet al, SSS’11] • Alliance: subset of nodes • f, g: 2 functions mapping nodes to natural integers • For every process p: • p∉ Alliance ⇒ at leastf(p) neighbors ∈ Alliance • p∈ Alliance ⇒ at least g(p) neighbors ∈ Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  18. Example: (f,g)-Alliance Rednodes form a (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  19. Example: (f,g)-Alliance Rednodes DO NOT form a (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  20. (f,g)-Alliance: generalization of several problems • Dominating sets • K-domination sets • K-tuple domination sets • Global defensive alliance • Global offensive alliance E.g., Dominating set = (1,0)-alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  21. Minimality & 1-Minimality • Let A be a set of nodes • A is a minimal (f,g)-Alliance iffevery proper subset of A is not an (f,g)-Alliance • A is a 1-minimal (f,g)-Alliance iff ∀p ∈ A, A-{p} is not an (f,g)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  22. Example: (0,1)-Alliance Red nodes form a (0,1)-Alliance, but NEITHER a minimal NOR a 1-minimal (0,1)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  23. Example: (0,1)-Alliance Red nodes form a 1-minimal (0,1)-Alliance but not a minimal one SSS 2013, Osaka

  24. Example: (0,1)-Alliance Red nodes (empty set) both form a minimal AND a 1-minimal (0,1)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  25. Property[Douradoet al, SSS’11] • Every minimal (f,g)-Alliance is a 1-minimal (f,g)-Alliance • If for every node p, f(p) ≥ g(p), then • A is a minimal (f,g)-Alliance iff A is a 1-minimal (f,g)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  26. Contribution • Self-Stabilizing Safe Converging Algorithm for computing: a minimal (f,g)-Alliance in identified networks • Safe Convergence • Stabilization in 4 rounds to a configuration, where an (f,g)-Alliance is defined • Stabilization in 4n+4 additional rounds to a configuration, where minimal (f,g)-Alliance is defined • Assumptions: • If for every node p, f(p) ≥ g(p) and δ(p) ≥ g(p) • Locally shared memory model, unfair daemon • Other complexities • Memory requirement: O(logn) bits per process • Step complexity: O(Δ3n) SSS 2013, Osaka

  27. Algorithm’s main ideas SSS 2013, Osaka

  28. ``Naïve Idea” • One Boolean • Red: ∈ A • Green: ∉ A • Two actions: • Join • Leave SSS 2013, Osaka

  29. ``Naïve Idea” To obtain safe convergence, it should be harder to leave than to join • One boolean • Red: ∈ A • Green: ∉ A • Two actions: • Join • Leave SSS 2013, Osaka

  30. Leave the alliance • p can leave if : • At least f(p) neighbors ∈ A after pleaves AND • Each neighbor q still have enough neighbors ∈ A after pleaves • i.e., g(q) or f(q) depending whether q belongs or not to A SSS 2013, Osaka

  31. At least f(p) neighbors ∈ A after pleaves • Leaving should be locally sequential • Example: (2,1)-Alliance p SSS 2013, Osaka

  32. At least f(p) neighbors ∈ A after pleaves • Leaving should be locally sequential • Example: (2,1)-Alliance p p SSS 2013, Osaka

  33. At least f(p) neighbors ∈ A after pleaves • Leaving should be locally sequential • Example: (2,1)-Alliance p SSS 2013, Osaka

  34. At least f(p) neighbors ∈ A after pleaves • Leaving should be locally sequential • Example: (2,1)-Alliance p p SSS 2013, Osaka

  35. Pointer: authorization to leave Nil p Nil SSS 2013, Osaka

  36. Pointer: authorization to leave Nil p Nil SSS 2013, Osaka

  37. Each neighbor still have enough neighbor ∈ A after pleaves • A neighbor q gives an authorization only if q still have enough neighbors ∈ A without p p (1,0)-Alliance q SSS 2013, Osaka

  38. Each neighbor still have enough neighbor ∈ A after pleaves • A neighbor q gives an authorization only if q still have enough neighbors ∈ A without p p (1,0)-Alliance If q has several choices ID breaks ties q SSS 2013, Osaka

  39. Deadlock problems Nil Nil (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  40. Deadlock problems Busy! Nil Nil (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  41. Deadlock problems Busy! Nil Nil (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  42. Deadlock problems Busy! Nil Nil Tie break! (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  43. Deadlock problems Busy! Nil Nil Tie break! Nil (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  44. Deadlock problems Busy! Nil Nil Tie break! Nil (1,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  45. How to evaluate Busy? • NP∩ A < f(p) Busy! p (2,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  46. How to evaluate Busy? • NP∩ A < f(p) • A neighbor qof pneeds that pstays in the alliance Busy! p q (2,0)-Alliance SSS 2013, Osaka

  47. How to evaluate Busy? • NP∩ A < f(p) • A neighbor qof pneeds that pstays in the alliance 0 2 2 1 Busy! p q 2 3 2 1 (2,0)-Alliance Nb SSS 2013, Osaka

  48. Last problem … • (1,0)-Alliance Nil Nil Nil SSS 2013, Osaka

  49. Last problem … • (1,0)-Alliance Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil SSS 2013, Osaka

  50. Last problem … • (1,0)-Alliance Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil SSS 2013, Osaka

More Related