1 / 28

Time Optimal Asynchronous Self-Stabilizing Spanning Tree

Time Optimal Asynchronous Self-Stabilizing Spanning Tree. Janna Burman and Shay Kutten Technion. Talk Overview. Model and Definitions Contribution The algorithm Ideas adopted from [AKMPV-93] Revising the algorithm. Node.

lamont
Télécharger la présentation

Time Optimal Asynchronous Self-Stabilizing Spanning Tree

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. Time Optimal AsynchronousSelf-Stabilizing Spanning Tree Janna Burman and Shay Kutten Technion

  2. Talk Overview • Model and Definitions • Contribution • The algorithm • Ideas adopted from [AKMPV-93] • Revising the algorithm

  3. Node Fine-GrainedAsynchronousMessage Passing Modelrepresented by Graph = (V,E); |V| = n Arbitrary delivery time a c FIFO b Unique ID Bounded bandwidth BB = 1 packet (for simplicity) Time1only for time analysis Time=0 • Dynamic • Uniform • Decentralized

  4. Definitions • Self-stabilizing algorithm • starting from arbitrary state, it reaches (and remains in) a legal global state (if there are no additional faults for “long enough”):Predicate(statea , stateb , statec …) • Stabilization time • maximum # of time units until the stabilization • Bound D • a known upper bound on the diameter of the network (used to bound the memory space;the time complexity of the alg. does not depend on D) • depth(v)- Maximum shortest path from v (“radius(v)”) • vmin - minimum ID node

  5. Talk Overview • Model and Definitions • Contribution • The algorithm • Ideas adopted from [AKMPV-93] • Revising the algorithm

  6. Contribution[this paper] Previous results [AKMPV-93] For the long list of the related work, please, refer the paper.

  7. Talk Overview • Model and Definitions • Contribution • The algorithm • Ideas adopted from [AKMPV-93] • Revising the algorithm

  8. Periodically exchanging message Base and Image Variables Previous work does not require this granularity varv varu[v] v u varv[u] varu

  9. Talk Overview • Model and Definitions • Contribution • The algorithm • Ideas adopted from [AKMPV-93] • Revising the algorithm

  10. The algorithm usesBellman-Ford’s algorithm distance estimate to r minimal ID seen so far Stabilization in O(D) r, d neighbor Bellman-Fordwithbound D[Arora, Gouda] at v u r minu{ ID, r[u] }: d[u]<D 1+minu{ d[u]: r = r[u]} , if r  ID 0 , if r = ID d  v

  11. 1+min{di[u]: ri = ri[u]}, if ri ID 0 , if ri= ID di The algorithm runs logD+1versionsof Bellman-Ford’s algorithm node v refuses to assign todi a value larger than 2i r0, d0 r1, d1 logD+1 r2, d2 neighbor u Bellman-Ford version i ri, di rimin { ID,ri[u] }: di[u]<2i v rlogD, dlogD

  12. Higher version 2i depth(vmin) Lower version 2i < depth(vmin) Version i stabilization vmin vmin in O(2i) time in (n) time

  13. A lower version detects:tree does not yet span all nodes up_coverroot2 =0 up_cover bits up_coverroot1 = 0 0 0 0 Not one stab. tree 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 down_coverroot1 =0 down_coverroot2 =0 down_cover bits

  14. Algorithm Output=minihigher (2i depth(vmin))version Higher versions 1 2i = D 1 2i> O(diam) 1 tree edges of min{ i }version such that down_coveri=1 v 1 2i~ O(diam) 1 output 1 2i< O(diam) 0 2i = 8 0 2i = 4 0 2i = 2 0 Stabilization in O(diameter) Lowerversions 2i = 0 0 down_coveri

  15. Talk Overview • Model and Definitions • Contribution • The algorithm • Ideas adopted from [AKMPV-93] • Revising the algorithm

  16. Definitions: In lower versionsfv exists for each node v Legal branchof v via u Shortest path (from u to v) with minimal ID parents foreign tov a v fv w u rfvv z Root var. Legal branchof v via fv

  17. more Definitions: SPRIGs - exist in lower versions till (n) rv=x sprigs of v rv=v v r=v r=v r=v r=y r=v r=v Problem:Tree structure and up_cover values in sprigs are unstable  this can destabilize up_cover bits of adjacent trees and sprigs r=v r=v r=v r=v

  18. We want the lower versionsdown_cover bits to stabilize to 0 in O(diameter)(to disqualify them)

  19. Assume: • Lower version • Non-stabilized Tree X • The time is after the claimed stabilization time. Intuition: Why previous solution is too coarse grained Tree X sprig of v 0 down_coverv= 1 up_coverv=0 up_coverv=1 up_coverv=1 r v 1 dw = 3 down_coverbits instability u r=v w r=v v w1 r=v fv 1due to sprig 0 Root of X 1 1 Legal branch of v via fv Parent pointers in X

  20. “Non-Stabilization Detector” down_coverv= 0 sprig of v up_coverv=0 u detects wunstable–the path from w to vis shorter through u(or u<w1) dw = 3 r v r=v u w r=v w1 r=v v fv Root of X 0 Legal branch of v via fv Parent pointers in X

  21. Other problems fixed with: • Strict communication discipline • Strict communication discipline • Before a node v may change any of its base variables, all its neighbors “know ” the value of v’s base variables change “know ” • Local reset r[v] = x d[v] = y … rv = x dv = y … rv = z dv = w … v v r[v] = x d[v] = y … r[v] = x d[v] = y …

  22. Other problems fixed with: • Local resetarmed with the discipline ensures • Whenever a node v changes its tree variables, no neighbor u considers v as its parent(so u does not mislead v’s up_cover) v u u u1 u1

  23. Important algorithm properties • each time a node joins a tree or a sprig, it joins without any offspring • each node w that joins a tree rooted at v on a “legal branch of v via fv”, joins with up_cover = 0 Legal branch of v via fv Not one stab. tree up_coverw=0 fv v w

  24. Time Complexity Analysis(intuition only)

  25. Lower versions: down_cover = 0 stabilization on TREE s (a) TREE Legal branch of v via fv 0 foreign to v fv v w r v 0 0 up_coverw =0 in O(2i)time Not one stab. tree down_cover = 0 in O(2i)time

  26. Old sprigs (and those split from old ones) Newly created sprigs Lower versions: down_cover = 0 stabilization on SPRIGs (b) Let us consider the time after the stabilization at trees v For each node:eitherdd+1at least each 2 time step, or it leaves the sprig r=v 0 r=vd 0 1 rv=u rv=v r=v r=v d 0 0 r=v 0 r=v d 1 r=v d r=v r=v 0 dd[parent]+1 0 down_cover=0 Disappear in at most 2*2i +1 time

  27. Time Complexity Summary Lower version 2i < depth(vmin) • Trees: inO(2i) time, down_cover=0 • Sprigs: +(2*2i+1) time, down_cover=0 Higher version 2i depth(vmin) • InO(2i), down_cover=1 • And inO(diameter)in version with the minimum i O(diameter) stabilization time

  28. Thank you!

More Related