Brief Announcement: Revisiting Lower Bounds for Two-Step Consensus

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

Abstract

A seminal result by Lamport shows that at least max{2e + f + 1, 2f + 1} processes are required to implement partially synchronous consensus that tolerates f process failures and can furthermore decide in two message delays under f failures. This lower bound is matched by the classical Fast Paxos protocol. However, more recent practical protocols, such as Egalitarian Paxos, provide two-step decisions with fewer processes, seemingly contradicting the lower bound. We show that this discrepancy arises because the classical bound requires two-step decisions under a wide range of scenarios, not all of which are relevant in practice. We propose a more pragmatic condition for which we establish tight bounds on the number of processes required. Interestingly, these bounds depend on whether consensus is implemented as an atomic object or a decision task. For consensus as an object, max{2e + f - 1, 2f + 1} processes are necessary and sufficient for two-step decisions, while for a task the tight bound is max{2e + f, 2f + 1}.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationPODC 2025 - Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
PublisherAssociation for Computing Machinery
Pages58-61
Number of pages4
ISBN (Electronic)9798400718854
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Jun 2025
Event44th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2025 - Huatulco, Mexico
Duration: 16 Jun 202520 Jun 2025

Publication series

NameProceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
VolumePart of F216205

Conference

Conference44th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2025
Country/TerritoryMexico
CityHuatulco
Period16/06/2520/06/25

Keywords

  • consensus
  • distributed algorithms
  • lower bounds

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Brief Announcement: Revisiting Lower Bounds for Two-Step Consensus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this