SWIM Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SWIM "Outsourced Heartbeats"

The Scalable Weakly Consistent Infection-style Process Group Membership (SWIM) Protocol is a group membership protocol based on "outsourced heartbeats"[1] used in distributed systems, first introduced by Abhinandan Das, Indranil Gupta and Ashish Motivala in 2002.[2][3] It is a hybrid algorithm which combines failure detection with group membership dissemination.

Protocol

[edit | edit source]

The protocol has two components, the Failure Detector Component and the Dissemination Component.

The Failure Detector Component functions as follows:

  1. Every T' time units, each node (N1) sends a ping to random other node (N2) in its membership list.
  2. If N1 receives a response from N2, N2 is decided to be healthy and N1 updates its "last heard from" timestamp for N2 to be the current time.
  3. If N1 does not receive a response, N1 contacts k other nodes on its list ({N3,...,N3+k}), and requests that they ping N2.
  4. If after T' units of time: if no successful response is received, N1 marks N2 as failed.

The Dissemination Component functions as follows:

  • Upon N1 detecting a failed node N2, N1 sends a multicast message to the rest of the nodes in its membership list, with information about the failed node.
  • Voluntary requests for a node to enter/leave the group are also sent via multicast.

Properties

[edit | edit source]

The protocol provides the following guarantees:

  • Strong Completeness: Full completeness is guaranteed (e.g. the crash-failure of any node in the group is eventually detected by all live nodes).
  • Detection Time: The expected value of detection time (from node failure to detection) is T˙11eqf, where T is the length of the protocol period, and qf is the fraction of non-faulty nodes in the group.[3]

Extensions

[edit | edit source]

The original SWIM paper lists the following extensions to make the protocol more robust:[2]

  • Suspicion: Nodes that are unresponsive to ping messages are not initially marked as failed. Instead, they are marked as "suspicious"; nodes which discover a "suspicious" node still send a multicast to all other nodes including this mechanism. If a "suspicious" node responds to a ping before some time-out threshold, an "alive" message is sent via multicast to remove the "suspicious" label from the node.
  • Infection-Style Dissemination: Instead of propagating node failure information via multicast, protocol messages are piggybacked on the ping messages used to determine node liveness. This is equivalent to gossip dissemination.
  • Round-Robin Probe Target Selection: Instead of randomly picking a node to probe during each protocol time step, the protocol is modified so that each node performs a round-robin selection of probe target. This bounds the worst-case detection time of the protocol, without degrading the average detection time.

See also

[edit | edit source]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ^ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  2. ^ a b Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  3. ^ a b Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).