59 lines
2.9 KiB
TeX
59 lines
2.9 KiB
TeX
|
\section{Read-Write Quorum Systems}
|
||
|
|
\NOTE[mwhittaker]{%
|
||
|
|
These definitions are adapted from the quorum system definitions. We should
|
||
|
|
double check that they all make sense or find the definitions in some paper.
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Given a set $X = \set{x_1, \ldots, x_n}$, a \defword{read-write quorum system}
|
||
|
|
over $X$ is a pair of sets $Q = (R, W)$ of subsets of $X$ such that every $r
|
||
|
|
\in R$ intersects every $w \in W$. The elements $r \in R$ are called
|
||
|
|
\defword{read quorums}, and the elements $w \in W$ are called \defword{write
|
||
|
|
quorums}.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\TODO[mwhittaker]{%
|
||
|
|
How do we define coteries for read-write quorums? Obviously, we don't want
|
||
|
|
one read quorum being a strict subset of another read quorum, and we don't
|
||
|
|
want a write quorum being a strict subset of another write quorum, but can a
|
||
|
|
read quorum be a strict subset of a write quorum and vice-versa?
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\TODO[mwhittaker]{%
|
||
|
|
Once we define coteries, we can define domination.
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Let $\sigma_R: R \to [0, 1]$ and $\sigma_W: W \to [0, 1]$ be a discrete
|
||
|
|
probability distribution over the read and write quorums of $Q$. We call
|
||
|
|
$\sigma$ a \defword{strategy}. Let $0 \leq p_r \leq 1$ be the probability of
|
||
|
|
performing a read and $p_w = 1 - p_r$ be the probability of performing a write.
|
||
|
|
We have the following definitions.
|
||
|
|
\begin{align*}
|
||
|
|
l_{\sigma,p_r,p_w}(x)
|
||
|
|
&\defeq p_r \cdot \parens*{\sum_{\setst{r \in R}{x \in r}} \sigma_R(r)} +
|
||
|
|
p_w \cdot \parens*{\sum_{\setst{w \in W}{x \in w}} \sigma_W(w)} \\
|
||
|
|
L_{\sigma,p_r,p_w}(Q) &\defeq \max_{x \in X} l_{\sigma,p_r,p_w}(x) \\
|
||
|
|
L_{p_r,p_w}(Q) &\defeq \min_\sigma L_{\sigma,p_r,p_w}(Q)
|
||
|
|
\end{align*}
|
||
|
|
$l_{\sigma,p_r,p_w}(x)$ is the load on $x$ given some strategy $\sigma$ and
|
||
|
|
some workload $p_r,p_w$. $L_{\sigma,p_r,p_w}(Q)$ is the load on most loaded
|
||
|
|
element $x$. $L{p_r,p_w}(Q)$ is the \defword{load} of the best possible
|
||
|
|
strategy.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The \defword{read resilience} or \defword{read fault tolerance} of a quorum
|
||
|
|
system $Q$ is the largest number $f_r$ such that for every subset $F \subseteq
|
||
|
|
X$ with $|F| = f_r$, there still exists some read quorum $r \in R$ such that $r
|
||
|
|
\cap F = \emptyset$.
|
||
|
|
%
|
||
|
|
The \defword{write resilience} or \defword{write fault tolerance} of a quorum
|
||
|
|
system $Q$ is the largest number $f_w$ such that for every subset $F \subseteq
|
||
|
|
X$ with $|F| = f_w$, there still exists some write quorum $w \in W$ such that $w
|
||
|
|
\cap F = \emptyset$.
|
||
|
|
%
|
||
|
|
The \defword{resilience} or \defword{fault tolerance} of a quorum system is the
|
||
|
|
minimum of its read resilience and write resilience. Intuitively, a quorum
|
||
|
|
system has read fault tolerance $f_r$ if we can fail an arbitrary set of $f_r$
|
||
|
|
elements and still have some read quorum left; a quorum system has write fault
|
||
|
|
tolerance $f_w$ if we can fail an arbitrary set of $f_w$ elements and still
|
||
|
|
have some write quorum left; and a quorum system has fault tolerance $f$ if we
|
||
|
|
can fail an arbitrary set of $f$ elements and still have some read quorum and
|
||
|
|
some write quorum left.
|