PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 085
CHAPTER 4. QUORUM INTERSECTION REVISED 85 p1 a1 a2 a3 p2 epro:1 eacc :1 vacc :B epro:1 eacc :1 vacc :B epro:1 eacc :1 vacc :B e : 0, E : {2, . . . } propose(0,A) timeout e : 2, E : {4, . . . } prepare(2) promise(2,1,B) QP : {a1}, emax:0 v:B promise(2,1,B) QP :{a1,a2} propose(2,B) accept(2) QA : {a1} accept(2) QA :{a1,a2} o:2 eacc :2 epro:2 epro:2 eacc :2 eacc :2 epr (2, B) decided Figure 4.4: Example of a proposer proposing a value different to the decided value, after the commit point has been reached. then we can reduce the phase one quorum depending on the epoch. 4.3 Implications Thus far we have weakened the quorum intersection requirement of Paxos and discussed the implications for Classic Paxos, as described in Chapter 2. In this section, we will explore the implication of our revised understanding of consensus on the known variants of Paxos, as surveyed in Chapter 3.PDF Image | Distributed consensus
PDF Search Title:
Distributed consensusOriginal File Name Searched:
UCAM-CL-TR-935.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Cruise Ship Reviews | Luxury Resort | Jet | Yacht | and Travel Tech More Info
Cruising Review Topics and Articles More Info
Software based on Filemaker for the travel industry More Info
The Burgenstock Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
Resort Reviews: World Class resorts... More Info
The Riffelalp Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
| CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@cruisingreview.com | RSS | AMP |