BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Matthieu Perrin

Matthieu Perrin appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingProgramming Languages

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

State-Machine Replication for Planet-Scale Systems (Extended Version)

Online applications now routinely replicate their data at multiple sites around the world. In this paper we present Atlas, the first state-machine replication protocol tailored for such planet-scale systems. Atlas does not rely on a distinguished leader, so clients enjoy the same quality of service independently of their geographical locations. Furthermore, client-perceived latency improves as we add sites closer to clients. To achieve this, Atlas minimizes the size of its quorums using an observation that concurrent data center failures are rare. It also processes a high percentage of accesses in a single round trip, even when these conflict. We experimentally demonstrate that Atlas consistently outperforms state-of-the-art protocols in planet-scale scenarios. In particular, Atlas is up to two times faster than Flexible Paxos with identical failure assumptions, and more than doubles the performance of Egalitarian Paxos in the YCSB benchmark.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Causal Consistency: Beyond Memory

In distributed systems where strong consistency is costly when not impossible, causal consistency provides a valuable abstraction to represent program executions as partial orders. In addition to the sequential program order of each computing entity, causal order also contains the semantic links between the events that affect the shared objects -- messages emission and reception in a communication channel , reads and writes on a shared register. Usual approaches based on semantic links are very difficult to adapt to other data types such as queues or counters because they require a specific analysis of causal dependencies for each data type. This paper presents a new approach to define causal consistency for any abstract data type based on sequential specifications. It explores, formalizes and studies the differences between three variations of causal consistency and highlights them in the light of PRAM, eventual consistency and sequential consistency: weak causal consistency, that captures the notion of causality preservation when focusing on convergence ; causal convergence that mixes weak causal consistency and convergence; and causal consistency, that coincides with causal memory when applied to shared memory.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On Composition and Implementation of Sequential Consistency

To implement a linearizable shared memory in synchronous message-passing systems it is necessary to wait for a time linear to the uncertainty in the latency of the network for both read and write operations. Waiting only for one of them suffices for sequential consistency. This paper extends this result to crash-prone asynchronous systems, proposing a distributed algorithm building a sequentially consistent shared snapshot memory on top of an asynchronous message-passing system where less than half of the processes may crash. We prove that waiting is needed only when a process invokes a read/snapshot right after a write. We also show that sequential consistency is composable in some cases commonly encountered: 1) objects that would be linearizable if they were implemented on top of a linearizable memory become sequentially consistent when implemented on top of a sequential memory while remaining composable and 2) in round-based algorithms, where each object is only accessed within one round.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On Composition and Implementation of Sequential Consistency (Extended Version)

It has been proved that to implement a linearizable shared memory in synchronous message-passing systems it is necessary to wait for a time proportional to the uncertainty in the latency of the network for both read and write operations, while waiting during read or during write operations is sufficient for sequential consistency. This paper extends this result to crash-prone asynchronous systems. We propose a distributed algorithm that builds a sequentially consistent shared memory abstraction with snapshot on top of an asynchronous message-passing system where less than half of the processes may crash. We prove that it is only necessary to wait when a read/snapshot is immediately preceded by a write on the same process. We also show that sequential consistency is composable in some cases commonly encountered: 1) objects that would be linearizable if they were implemented on top of a linearizable memory become sequentially consistent when implemented on top of a sequential memory while remaining composable and 2) in round-based algorithms, where each object is only accessed within one round.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Brief Announcement: Update Consistency in Partitionable Systems

Data replication is essential to ensure reliability, availability and fault-tolerance of massive distributed applications over large scale systems such as the Internet. However, these systems are prone to partitioning, which by Brewer's CAP theorem [1] makes it impossible to use a strong consistency criterion like atomicity. Eventual consistency [2] guaranties that all replicas eventually converge to a common state when the participants stop updating. However, it fails to fully specify shared objects and requires additional non-intuitive and error-prone distributed specification techniques, that must take into account all possible concurrent histories of updates to specify this common state [3]. This approach, that can lead to specifications as complicated as the implementations themselves, is limited by a more serious issue. The concurrent specification of objects uses the notion of concurrent events. In message-passing systems, two events are concurrent if they are enforced by different processes and each process enforced its event before it received the notification message from the other process. In other words, the notion of concurrency depends on the implementation of the object, not on its specification. Consequently, the final user may not know if two events are concurrent without explicitly tracking the messages exchanged by the processes. A specification should be independent of the system on which it is implemented. We believe that an object should be totally specified by two facets: its abstract data type, that characterizes its sequential executions, and a consistency criterion, that defines how it is supposed to behave in a distributed environment. Not only sequential specification helps repeal the problem of intention, it also allows to use the well studied and understood notions of languages and automata. This makes possible to apply all the tools developed for sequential systems, from their simple definition using structures and classes to the most advanced techniques like model checking and formal verification. Eventual consistency (EC) imposes no constraint on the convergent state, that very few depends on the sequential specification. For example, an implementation that ignores all the updates is eventually consistent, as all replicas converge to the initial state. We propose a new consistency criterion, update consistency (UC), in which the convergent state must be obtained by a total ordering of the updates, that contains the sequential order of each

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Tracking Causal Dependencies in Web Services Orchestrations Defined in ORC

This article shows how the operational semantics of a language like ORC can be instrumented so that the execution of a program produces information on the causal dependencies between events. The concurrent semantics we obtain is based on asymmetric labeled event structures. The approach is illustrated using a Web service orchestration instance and the detection of race conditions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Update Consistency for Wait-free Concurrent Objects

In large scale systems such as the Internet, replicating data is an essential feature in order to provide availability and fault-tolerance. Attiya and Welch proved that using strong consistency criteria such as atomicity is costly as each operation may need an execution time linear with the latency of the communication network. Weaker consistency criteria like causal consistency and PRAM consistency do not ensure convergence. The different replicas are not guaranteed to converge towards a unique state. Eventual consistency guarantees that all replicas eventually converge when the participants stop updating. However, it fails to fully specify the semantics of the operations on shared objects and requires additional non-intuitive and error-prone distributed specification techniques. This paper introduces and formalizes a new consistency criterion, called update consistency, that requires the state of a replicated object to be consistent with a linearization of all the updates. In other words, whereas atomicity imposes a linearization of all of the operations, this criterion imposes this only on updates. Consequently some read operations may return out-dated values. Update consistency is stronger than eventual consistency, so we can replace eventually consistent objects with update consistent ones in any program. Finally, we prove that update consistency is universal, in the sense that any object can be implemented under this criterion in a distributed system where any number of nodes may crash.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access