JP2011118747A - Distributed system and logical time adjustment method - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a distributed system and a logical time adjustment method, for synchronizing logical time with system time by determining an increment value of the logical time from a time interval having been agreed on timing to increment the logical time by agreement, and adjusting the logical time in accordance with the determined time interval. <P>SOLUTION: In the distributed system, each computer 100-i has a logical time storage part 7 for storing information about the logical time updated by agreement processing executed at first time intervals, a logical time management part 6, and an update time storage part 8. The logical time management part 6 calculates a candidate of the increment value to be used to update the information about the logical time from the time interval between a first time that is a system time when the information about the logical time is updated last time and a second time that is a system time when the information is updated last time but one, the time interval being indicated by information stored in the update time storage part 8. The logical time management part 6 determines the increment value by use of a t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm based on the candidate of the increment value, and updates the information about the logical time by the determined increment value. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2011,JPO&INPIT

Description

  In the present invention, distributed processing is performed by (n−t) or more computers out of n computers connected to a network transmitting and receiving packets to each other and using the t-fault-resistant Byzantine Byzantine agreement algorithm. In particular, the present invention relates to a distributed system and a logical time adjustment method suitable for synchronizing logical time and system time.

  In recent years, the improvement of computer technology and network technology has been remarkable, and along with this, computerization of business has been widely performed. Also, depending on the contents of the business, there are many things that are not allowed to be interrupted due to a failure or the like, and recently it has become common to construct a distributed system.

  A distributed system is a system in which a plurality of computers connected via a network perform one process while exchanging information with each other. In this distributed system, in order for a plurality of computers constituting the system to maintain consistency and consistency, an agreement is reached between the computers.

  Patent Document 1 describes a distributed system that performs multiplexing control and time management using a t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm in a process of making an agreement between computers. The t-tolerance Byzantine consensus algorithm is an algorithm for maintaining a common value between normal processes even when a Byzantine-type failure occurs in t processes (failure that does not place a condition on the behavior at the time of failure). is there.

  According to the distributed system described in Patent Document 1, using such a t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm, input data is agreed between (n−t) or more of n computers constituting the distributed system. By taking it, if there are up to t failures / stagnations, it can continue to operate in real time without split brain. That is, split brain can be prevented and real-time performance can be ensured when a failure occurs.

  Each of the n computers constituting the distributed system described in Patent Document 1 has a virtual clock that counts the virtual time separately from the system clock that counts the system time. The virtual clock is constituted by a virtual time counter. In n computers, an application program is executed using virtual time.

  Therefore, in the distributed system described in Patent Document 1, the virtual time of each computer (that is, the value of the virtual time counter) is incremented by a value corresponding to the first time at the first time interval. The timing is agreed using a t-fault-resistant Byzantine agreement algorithm. Further, in the distributed system described in Patent Document 1, the most advanced system time agreement among the n computers is determined using the t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm at the second time interval (however, the second time interval). > First time interval), the increment value of the virtual time of the n computers is set to match the agreed system time. The set increment value is used as a value corresponding to the first time until the next timing for reaching the agreement of the most advanced system time comes. Thereby, the virtual time which n computers use at the time of execution of an application program can be made to correspond in each computer.

Japanese Patent No. 3655263

  In recent distributed systems, an elapsed time since the start of the distributed system, that is, a logical time is used. Therefore, a technique for adjusting the virtual time as applied in the distributed system described in Patent Document 1 (hereinafter referred to as the prior art) for adjusting the logical time of each of a plurality of computers constituting the distributed system. Can be considered.

  However, in the prior art, even if an agreement on the timing for incrementing the virtual time is obtained between the computers constituting the distributed system, if it takes a long time to obtain the agreement, The virtual time may be significantly shifted. For this reason, even if the prior art is used to adjust the logical time, if the consensus process takes a long time, the logical time may be greatly deviated from the actual elapsed time. This problem will be described in detail below.

  In the distributed system to which the t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm is applied as described in Patent Document 1, if up to t out of the n computers constituting the distributed system are faulty or stagnant, as described above. It can continue to operate in real time without split brain. On the contrary, this means that if, for example, a stagnation occurs in (t + 1) or more computers, the consensus process will not proceed, and real-time performance will not be ensured.

  Here, it is assumed that stagnation occurs in (t + 1) computers, and then one of (t + 1) computers returns from the stagnation. Then, the agreement process is performed by (nt) computers.

  However, even if (nt) computers agreed on the timing for incrementing the logical time, the logical time was incremented using the increment value set at that time using the prior art. Then, there is a possibility that the logical time is greatly deviated from the actual elapsed time (so-called system time) in the distributed system. In recent distributed systems, the failover time and the timeout time such as monitoring are measured using the logical time. Therefore, if the logical time is delayed, the failover time and the timeout time are also delayed.

  The present invention has been made in consideration of the above circumstances, and its purpose is to determine an increment value of a logical time, an agreed time interval for the timing of incrementing the logical time, and an agreed time interval. It is an object of the present invention to provide a distributed system and a logical time adjustment method capable of synchronizing the logical time and the system time by adjusting the logical time according to the above.

  According to one aspect of the present invention, a t-fault-tolerant Byzantine Byzantine consensus algorithm by transmitting and receiving packets to and from each other by an aligned multicast means of (nt) or more computers among n computers connected to a network. A distributed system for performing distributed processing is provided by obtaining an agreement using. In this distributed system, each of the n computers includes a logical time storage means for storing logical time information updated by an agreement process executed at a first time interval, and the logical time information Update time storage means for storing information on the first time as the system time updated last time and information on the second time as the system time updated last time, and information stored in the update time storage means Logical time management means for calculating a candidate for an increment value used to update the information on the logical time from a time interval between the first time and the second time shown, wherein the candidate for the increment value Based on the t-fault tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm, an increment value is determined, and the logical time information is updated with the determined increment value. ; And a management time management means.

  According to the present invention, each of the n computers has the first time as the system time indicating the previous update time and the second as the system time indicating the previous update time for the update time for updating the logical time. Time information is stored in the update time storage means, and the logical time increment value is determined by agreement using the t-fault-resistant Byzantine Byzantine agreement algorithm from the time interval between the previous update time and the last update time. Therefore, the logical time and the system time can be synchronized by adjusting the logical time according to the determined time interval.

1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a distributed system according to an embodiment of the present invention. The block diagram which shows the structure of the computer shown by FIG. The figure which shows the data structure example of input packet data. The figure which shows the layout of the alignment multicast protocol data. 6 is a flowchart showing the procedure of a logical time adjustment method applied in the embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the agreement time interval in each computer when agreement is delayed by the stagnation of the computer in a distributed system. The figure which simplifies and shows an example of the relationship between the system time in each computer, and logical time when an agreement is delayed by the stagnation of the computer in a distributed system.

Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a distributed system according to an embodiment of the present invention. In FIG. 1, the distributed system 10 has more than the number of computers necessary to guarantee multiplexing by the t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm (t> 0), for example, 4 (n = 4) computers 100-1 (# 1) to 100-4 (# 4). In the present embodiment, t is 1.

  The computers 100-1 to 100-4 are connected to the client device 200 via the network A. The computers 100-1 to 100-4 are also connected to a client device (not shown) other than the client device 200 via the network A. In the present embodiment, the network A is a public network (external network). The computers 100-1 to 100-4 are connected via a network B. In the present embodiment, the network B is a private network (internal network).

  Similar to the computer in the distributed system described in Patent Document 1, the computers 100-1 to 100-4 transmit and receive information necessary for an agreement via the network A and determine the agreement. In the t-fault tolerance Byzantine agreement algorithm, up to t faults are allowed to be stopped, and the agreement information is determined when agreements are obtained with (nt) or more computers. For this reason, even if there is a computer that is not in time for the agreement due to failure or stagnation, the processing proceeds when this condition is satisfied, so that agreement delay due to timeout does not occur, and real-time performance is ensured. However, if (t + 1) or more computers are temporarily stagnant or it takes time to exchange agreement information due to network load, it takes time to finalize the agreement information, so the agreement processing is delayed. Will do.

  Each of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 has the same application program 3 (see FIG. 2). The computers 100-1 to 100-4 start from the same initial state. Thereafter, data input from the client device 200 to the distributed system is always delivered to the computers 100-1 to 100-4 in the same order through ordered multicast. Thereby, each application program 3 is executed in the computers 100-1 to 100-4.

  The input data string to the application program 3 that each of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 has has the same order by the ordered multicast. For this reason, the state of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 is kept the same and the output data strings are all the same due to the features of the deterministic program using the ordered multicast as described in Patent Document 1. . That is, program execution is multiplexed.

  FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a configuration of the computer 100-i (i = 1, 2,... 4) shown in FIG. In FIG. 2, a packet transmitted from the client apparatus 200 to the computer 100-i via the network A and received by the input reception queue unit (hereinafter referred to as reception queue) 1 of the computer 100-i is a candidate packet. Are stacked in the reception queue 1 in the order of reception. Candidate packets loaded in the reception queue 1 are delivered as input packets to the application program 3 or a logical time management unit 6 described later by the ordered multicast unit 2 (the agreement unit 262 included in the input packet determination unit 26). Is done. Note that candidate packets accumulated in the reception queue 1 include candidate packets whose processing type is “logical time” sent from the logical time management unit 6 in addition to candidate packets whose processing type is “application” sent from the client device 200. There is.

  The application program 3 receives the delivered input packet, processes the input packet according to the state stored in the program state management unit 4, and generates an output packet. The generated output packet is selected by the output filter unit 5 and then returned to the client device 200 via the network A (output).

  Next, the configuration of the ordered multicast unit 2 of the computer 100-i will be described. Similar to the ordered multicast unit described in Patent Document 1, the ordered multicast unit 2 has an input sequence number storage unit 21, an input packet journal storage unit 22, an ordered multicast protocol data transmission / reception unit (hereinafter referred to as a protocol data transmission / reception unit). ) 23, step number storage unit 24, candidate packet storage unit 25, input packet determination determination unit 26, maximum determination input sequence number storage unit 27, delay storage unit 28, and skip determination unit 29.

  The input sequence number storage unit 21 stores the sequence number of the next input packet to be delivered to the computer 100-i by the ordered multicast (that is, the latest sequence number assigned serially to the ordered multicast). The input packet journal storage unit 22 stores a certain amount of the input packet sequence that is confirmed to be delivered to the computer 100-i by the ordered multicast from the latest one. For this reason, when the latest determined input packet is stored in the storage unit 22 in a state where a certain amount of input packet columns are stored in the input packet journal storage unit 22, the oldest determination at that time The completed input packet is deleted from the storage unit 22.

  The protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 exchanges ordered multicast protocol data with the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 of another computer via the network B. The protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 includes a candidate packet broadcast unit 230. Candidate packet broadcasting section 230 broadcasts candidate packets (candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data described later) to all other computers.

  In this embodiment, the network to be used is switched between data exchange between the client apparatus 200 and the computer 100-i and data exchange between the computers 100-i. This reduces the network load. However, the configuration may be such that data exchange between the client device 200 and the computer 100-i and data exchange between the computers 100-i are performed via the network A, for example. Further, the network A is not necessarily a public network.

  The step number storage unit 24, the candidate packet storage unit 25, and the input packet confirmation determination unit 26 are used in an algorithm for determining the next input packet to be delivered to the application program 3 of the computer 100-i by ordered multicast.

  The step number storage unit 24 stores a step number indicating a protocol step. The candidate packet storage unit 25 stores a total of n input packets that are “input candidates” for each computer in that step.

  The input packet determination determination unit 26 determines the determination of the input packet from the information in the candidate packet storage unit 25 and determines the “input candidate” in the next step. The input packet confirmation determination unit 26 further determines whether the input packet is passed to the application program 3 or the logical time management unit 6. For this determination, the processing type information indicating the processing type is added to the candidate packet loaded in the reception queue 1. The input packet confirmation determination unit 26 includes an input candidate collection unit 261 and an agreement unit 262.

  FIG. 3 shows an example of the data structure of data (input packet data) accumulated in the reception queue 1. As shown in FIG. 3, the input packet data includes fields of processing type and input packet. An input packet is stored (set) in the input packet field, and process type information is stored in the process type field.

  In this embodiment, the processing type information is used by the agreement unit 262 of the input packet determination determination unit 26 to determine whether the input packet stored in the input packet field is to be passed to the application program 3 or the logical time management unit 6. Indicates the processing type. Therefore, the process type indicated by the process type information is divided into (1) application and (2) logical time. When the processing type is “application”, it also indicates that the input packet is input from the external client device 20, and when the processing type is “logical time”, any of the input packets that constitute the distributed system 10 It is also shown that it is input to the reception queue 1 of any one of the computers from the logical time management unit 6 of the computer.

  Referring again to FIG. 2, the maximum confirmed input sequence number storage unit 27 stores the maximum input sequence number that is known to have been delivered, including other computers. The delay storage unit 28 has (n−1) delay flags (3 in the present embodiment where n = 4) indicating whether or not it is delayed from the other (n−1) computers (n = 4). Number of flags). The skip determination unit 29 determines the necessity of the skip operation from the information in the delay storage unit 28 and executes the skip operation.

  In the following description, the input sequence number stored in the input sequence number storage unit 21 is referred to as a corresponding input sequence number, and the step number stored in the step number storage unit 24 is referred to as a corresponding step number. The input sequence number stored in the maximum determined input sequence number storage unit 27 is referred to as a corresponding maximum determined input sequence number. Of the n “input candidates” stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25 included in the ordered multicast unit 2 of the computer 100-i, the “input candidates” corresponding to the computer 100-i itself (own computer) Is called a self-candidate, and “input candidates” other than the self-candidate are called other candidates.

Next, the ordered multicast protocol data transmitted / received by the protocol data transmitting / receiving unit 23 will be described.
FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a layout of the ordered multicast protocol data. As shown in FIG. 3, the ordered multicast protocol data transmitted / received by the protocol data transmitting / receiving unit 23 includes a type, a sender, an input sequence number, a step number (aligned multicast step number), a maximum confirmed input sequence number, a processing type, and Contains each field of the input packet. The arranged multicast protocol data shown in FIG. 3 is different from the protocol data described in Patent Document 1 in that the processing type field is added.

The ordered multicast protocol data is used in the following three types depending on the type field at the top.
(1) Candidate type The input order number field, the step number field, and the input packet field respectively store a corresponding input order number, a corresponding step number, and a self-candidate at the time of transmission by the sender (sender computer).

(2) Determined type Indicates that the input packet corresponding to the input sequence number (the input sequence number stored in the input sequence number field) is in the input packet journal storage unit 22 at the time of transmission by the sender. The input packet is stored in the field. In this case, the step number field is not used.

(3) Delay type Indicates that there is no input packet corresponding to the input sequence number in the input packet journal storage unit 22 at the time of transmission by the sender. In this case, the step number field and the input packet field are not used.

  In any type of ordered multicast protocol data, the maximum determined input sequence number field stores the corresponding maximum determined input sequence number at the time of transmitting the ordered multicast protocol data from the sender (sender computer). In addition, the corresponding maximum confirmed input sequence number in the receiving computer of the ordered multicast protocol data is the sequence number of the input packet determined in the receiving computer and the maximum determined in the ordered multicast protocol data received in the receiving computer. The input sequence number is updated to the largest one.

  In this embodiment, unlike the computer described in Patent Document 1, the computer 100-i of the distributed system 10 has a new configuration for adjusting a logical time that is an elapsed time after the distributed system 10 is activated. including. That is, the computer 100-i further includes a logical time management unit 6, a logical time storage unit 7, an update time storage unit 8, and a system clock 9, as shown in FIG.

  The logical time management unit 6 calculates a candidate value for the increment value used to increment the logical time, and determines the increment value using the ordered multicast. The logical time management unit 6 updates the logical time based on the determined increment value. The logical time storage unit 7 stores the latest logical time information updated by the logical time management unit 6. The update time storage unit 8 stores information on the time (first time) when the logical time was last updated by the logical time management unit 6 and the time (second time) when the logical time was updated last time. The system clock 9 measures the system time that is the actual time of the distributed system 10.

Next, the procedure of the logical time adjustment method applied in this embodiment will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.
The logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-i monitors the reception queue 1 when the corresponding step number stored in the step number storage unit 24 is an initial value and updates the logical time last time. 1 whether a predetermined time has elapsed (YES in step 501), and there is a candidate packet (hereinafter also referred to as a logical time update request packet) requesting the reception queue 1 to increment the logical time. Determination is made (step 502). The first predetermined time is an update time interval that is a preset reference for determining the timing of the logical time update.

  If the first predetermined time has elapsed since the previous logical time was updated (YES in step 501), and no logical time update request packet exists as a candidate packet in the reception queue 1 (NO in step 502). The logical time management unit 6 creates a logical time update request packet (step 503). In the processing type field and the input packet field of the created logical time update request packet, processing type information indicating logical time and increment value candidates are set, respectively. In the present embodiment, the increment value candidates used to update the logical time include the time taken for the previous agreement, that is, the time when the logical time was updated the previous time (hereinafter referred to as the previous update time) and the previous time. The time interval (hereinafter referred to as the agreed time interval) with the time when the logical time is updated (hereinafter referred to as the previous update time) is used. Therefore, the logical time management unit 6 acquires the previous and previous update times from the update time storage unit 8, and sets the difference as a candidate for the increment value.

  When the logical time management unit 6 creates a logical time update request packet (step 503), the logical time update request packet is put into the reception queue 1 as a candidate packet (step 504). The candidate packet (logical time update request packet) input to the reception queue 1 is the input packet of the computer 100-i as in the case where the candidate packet of the application from the client device 200 is loaded in the reception queue 1 in the prior art. It becomes the object of the agreement process by the agreement unit 262 in the decision determination unit 26, and for example, the following processing is performed using the algorithms 1 to 4 described in Patent Document 1 (see FIGS. 5 and 6 of Patent Document 1). Is done.

  The input candidate collection unit 261 of the input packet confirmation determination unit 26 performs algorithms 1 to 3 described in Patent Document 1 (FIG. 6 of Patent Document 1) during the agreement process by the agreement unit 262 of the input packet confirmation determination unit 26. The candidate list creation means for executing (see)), and performs a well-known candidate list creation process for collecting in the candidate packet storage unit 25 (nt) or more candidate packets to be subjected to the agreement process. The (n−t) or more candidate packets to be collected are packets (here, logical time update request packets) selected as candidates to be processed next by (nt) or more computers.

  In the candidate list creation process, the input candidate collection unit 261 advances the corresponding step number stored in the step number storage unit 24 to the next while the candidate packet of the logical time accumulated in the reception queue 1 is set as a candidate packet. The candidate type aligned multicast protocol data, which is stored in the storage unit 25 and has its own candidate set in the input packet field, is transmitted through the network B by the candidate packet broadcast unit 230 in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23. Broadcast transmission is performed to computers (that is, all of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 configuring the distributed system 10 except the computer 100-i itself). At this time, the input candidate collection unit 261 empties all other candidates in the candidate packet storage unit 25.

  The candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data broadcast by the candidate packet broadcast unit 230 in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 of the computer 100-i is received by the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 of the other computer, and is input to the other computer. Collected by the candidate collection unit 261. That is, the input candidate collection unit 261 of another computer matches the corresponding input sequence number stored in the input sequence number storage unit 21 when the corresponding step number is not the initial value or there is no candidate packet in the reception queue 1. Candidate type ordered multicast protocol data having an input order number (input order number field in which is set), a candidate whose step number set in the step number field of the ordered multicast protocol data is larger than the corresponding step number If the type of ordered multicast protocol data is received by the protocol data transmitting / receiving unit 23, the packet set in the input packet field in the received ordered multicast protocol data is stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25 as a candidate. You . Further, the input candidate collection unit 261 of another computer transmits the candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data in which the candidate packet set as the candidate is set in the input packet field to the candidate packet broadcast unit in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 of the other computer. 230 broadcasts over network B. At this time, the input candidate collection unit 261 of the other computer uses the candidate packet as a candidate for the candidate packet storage unit as another candidate corresponding to the sender of the received ordered multicast protocol data including the candidate packet. 25.

  The input candidate collection unit 261 of the computer 100-i transmits and receives the protocol data of the candidate type that is sent by the candidate packet broadcast unit 230 in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 of another computer. When received by the unit 23, the candidate packets (here, logical time update request packets) included in the received ordered multicast protocol data are collected. That is, the input candidate collection unit 261 has a step number set in the step number field in the ordered multicast protocol data received from another computer that is not larger than the corresponding step number, and is included in the received ordered multicast protocol data. If the step number is equal to the corresponding step number, the candidate packet in the received ordered multicast protocol data is stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25 as another candidate corresponding to the sender of the received ordered multicast protocol data. Store.

  The agreement unit 262 of the computer 100-i has (nt) or more (3 or more in this embodiment where n = 4, t = 1) candidate packets by the above-described candidate list creation process by the input candidate collection unit 261. When (non-empty input candidates) are collected in the candidate packet storage unit 25, processing using the algorithm 4 described in Patent Document 1 (see FIG. 5 of Patent Document 1) (hereinafter referred to as agreement processing) Is executed as follows. First, the agreement unit 262 functions as a first input candidate selection control unit, and (nt) or more candidate packets having the same content exist in the collected (nt) or more candidate packets. Judge whether to do.

  If there are (nt) or more candidate packets having the same contents, the agreement unit 262 determines the candidate packet as an input packet to be processed next. In other words, the agreement unit 262 determines the candidate packet input to the reception queue 1 by the logical time management unit 6 as an input packet by obtaining an agreement by the aligned multicast unit 2 of (nt) or more computers. At this time, the agreement unit 262 updates the corresponding maximum determined input sequence number stored in the maximum determined input sequence number storage unit 27 to the corresponding input sequence number. The agreement unit 262 deletes the candidate packet from the reception queue 1 if the confirmed input packet exists in the reception queue 1 as a candidate packet.

  On the other hand, when (nt) or more candidate packets having the same contents do not exist, that is, (nt) or more candidate packets cannot be agreed, and therefore the input packet to be processed next cannot be determined. The agreement unit 262 functions as first input candidate selection control means. Then, the agreement unit 262 determines its own candidate as follows depending on whether or not a majority or more of the same candidates exist in the collected (n−t) or more candidate packets.

  First, if more than a majority of the same candidate packets exist in the collected (n−t) or more candidate packets, the agreement unit 262 selects the same or more of the same candidate packets and selects its own candidate. As a candidate packet storage unit 25 and the candidate type of the ordered multicast protocol data in which the candidate is set in the input packet field is transmitted via the network B by the candidate packet broadcast unit 230 in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23. Broadcast to all computers. At this time, the agreement unit 262 discards all other candidates stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25 and causes the input candidate collection unit 261 to collect candidate packets again.

  On the other hand, if there is no more than a majority of the same candidate packets, the agreement unit 262 functions as a third input candidate selection control unit. Then, the agreement unit 262 randomly selects a candidate (input packet) from the input candidates stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25 as its own candidate, and the candidate type in which this own candidate is set in the input packet field The multicast packet data is sent to all other computers via the network B by the candidate packet broadcast unit 230 in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23. At this time, the agreement unit 262 discards all other candidates stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25.

  When the agreement unit 262 determines the input packet at the corresponding input sequence number, that is, when the input packet at the corresponding input sequence number is agreed and the ordered multicast is determined, the agreement unit 262 functions as a candidate output destination switching unit and performs the next process. Execute. That is, the agreement unit 262 determines whether or not the processing type indicated by the processing type information attached to the determined input packet is “logical time” (“application”), that is, the determined input packet is the logical time. It is determined whether the packet is a logical time update request packet requesting increment of.

  If the processing type is “logical time”, the agreement unit 262 passes the determined input packet to the logical time management unit 6 and stores the input packet in the input packet journal storage unit 22. On the other hand, if the processing type is “logical time”, the agreement unit 262 delivers the determined input packet to the application program 3 and stores the input packet in the input packet journal storage unit 22. In this way, the input packet is selectively transferred to the logical time management unit 6 or the application program 3 according to the processing type, and is different from Patent Document 1 in which the input packet is transferred to the application program 3.

  When the logical time management unit 6 inputs the logical time update request packet as a candidate packet into the reception queue 1 (step 504), the logical time management unit 6 proceeds to step 505. In step 505, the logical time management unit 6 determines whether the logical time update request packet is confirmed as an input packet depending on whether the logical time update request packet is delivered as an input packet from the agreement unit 262 to the logical time management unit 6. To do.

  The logical time management unit 6 also creates a candidate packet by skipping steps 502 to 504 when the first predetermined time has not elapsed since the previous logical time was updated (NO in step 501). It progresses to step 505, without. The logical time management unit 6 also determines that the first predetermined time has elapsed since the previous logical time was updated (YES in step 501) and the logical time update request packet exists as a candidate packet in the reception queue 1. (Yes in Step 502), Steps 503 to 504 are skipped, and the process proceeds to Step 505 without creating a candidate packet.

  In step 505, the logical time management unit 6 determines whether the logical time update request packet is confirmed as an input packet, based on whether the logical time update request packet is delivered from the agreement unit 262. When the logical time management unit 6 determines that the logical time update request packet has been confirmed as an input packet (YES in step 505), the logical time management unit 6 sets the increment value set in the confirmed input packet (logical time update request packet). Candidates are determined as increment values that have been agreed upon.

  In this way, the logical time management unit 6 calculates a value that is a candidate for the increment value, and determines the increment value using the ordered multicast. The logical time management unit 6 determines whether the determined increment value is equal to or longer than the second predetermined time (step 506). In the present embodiment, the second predetermined time is set to the same time as the first predetermined time.

  If the determined increment value is less than the second predetermined time (NO in step 506), the logical time management unit 6 ignores the input packet and returns to step 501 without updating the logical time. The reason why the determined increment value is less than the second predetermined time, that is, shorter than the reference update time interval (first predetermined time) is, for example, that the computer 100-i that has stagnated will be described later. This is a case where the agreement time interval is shortened by the chasing process.

  In the present embodiment, as described above, the second predetermined time is set to the same time as the first predetermined time. On the other hand, as will be described later, the agreed time interval has an error with respect to the reference update time interval (here, 1 second) even if the computer 100-i does not stagnate. Due to this error, the agreed time interval may become shorter than the reference update time interval. Therefore, the second predetermined time may be set to a time shorter than the first predetermined time by, for example, an allowable error Δ with respect to the reference update time interval.

  Next, it is assumed that the determined increment value is equal to or longer than the second predetermined time (YES in step 506). In this case, the logical time management unit 6 updates the logical time information stored in the logical time storage unit 7 at that time so that the logical time is incremented by the increment value (step 507). That is, the logical time management unit 6 advances the logical time by the determined increment value. At this time, the logical time management unit 6 updates the information indicating the previous update time stored in the update time storage unit 8 with the information indicating the previous update time stored in the update time storage unit 8 ( Step 508). That is, the logical time management unit 6 sets the previous update time as the last update time. In step 508, the logical time management unit 6 updates the information indicating the previous update time stored in the update time storage unit 8 with the current time indicated by the system clock 9. That is, the logical time management unit 6 sets the current time as the previous time.

  Next, the logical time management unit 6 determines whether the determined input packet exists in the reception queue 1 as a candidate packet (step 509). The confirmed input packet exists in the reception queue 1 as a candidate packet when the candidate packet created by the logical time management unit 6 of another computer is confirmed as the input packet. When the determined input packet exists in the reception queue 1 as a candidate packet (YES in step 509), the logical time management unit 6 deletes the candidate packet existing in the reception queue 1 (step 510).

  As a result, when the candidate packet created by the logical time management unit 6 of another computer is confirmed as an input packet, the computer 100-i uses the candidate packet created by the logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-i. Consensus processing by will not be performed. That is, in the computer 100-i, the candidate packet that is created by the logical time management unit 6 of the other computer and agreed first is used as the input packet.

  Increment value candidates, that is, candidate values for the agreed time interval, are calculated from the update time of the logical time in each computer 100-1 to 100-5 based on the system clock 9. For this reason, even if the agreement processing itself takes time due to a network delay or the like, the difference between the logical time and the system time is within the range of several milliseconds. This error is extremely small compared to the delay time (generally several seconds to several minutes) of consensus processing that occurs due to the stagnation of (t + 1) or more computers.

  The logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-i repeatedly performs the above-described processing according to the flowchart of FIG. 5, thereby reducing the difference between the logical time and the system time as much as possible and increasing the accuracy of the failover time and timeout time. Can do.

  In the initial consensus process at each computer 100-i after the start of the distributed system 10, the previous consensus time interval cannot be obtained. For this reason, although omitted in the flowchart of FIG. 5, in the present embodiment, the first predetermined time is used as an increment value until the previous agreed time interval is obtained. In the present embodiment, since the previous agreed time interval is used as the increment value, there is a deviation of one time from the actual time. However, if the agreement time interval is short, the difference is small, so this is not a problem.

  By the way, the ordered multicast unit 2 of each computer 100-i has a chasing function realized by using algorithms 5 and 6 described in Patent Document 1 (see FIGS. 7 and 8 of Patent Document 1). Yes. The chasing function is a function for eliminating a short delay in multiplexing execution when a computer that has been stagnating for a short time returns from a stagnant state (that is, a state in which it cannot participate in an agreement process using the t-fault tolerance Byzantine agreement algorithm). It is.

  The chasing process based on the chasing function will be described in detail below, taking as an example the case where the computer that has been stagnating for a short time is the computer 100-4. Here, the short time is the extent to which the input packet corresponding to the corresponding input number at the time of recovery of the computer that has been stagnant is left in the storage unit 22 without being deleted from the input packet journal storage unit 22 of another computer. Of time.

  Now, it is assumed that the computer 100-4 has recovered from a short stagnation and has broadcast candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data by the candidate packet broadcast unit 230 in the protocol data transmission / reception unit 23 of the computer 100-4.

  The agreement unit 262 in the ordered multicast unit 2 of the computer 100-j (j = 1, 2, 3) other than the computer 100-4 receives candidate type ordered multicast protocol data having an input order number smaller than the corresponding input order number. When received by the protocol data transmitting / receiving unit 23, it is determined whether or not an input packet corresponding to the input sequence number exists in the input packet journal storage unit 22. The sender of such a candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data is likely to be a computer that has recovered from a short stagnation.

  If a confirmed input packet corresponding to an input sequence number smaller than the corresponding input sequence number exists in the input packet journal storage unit 22 due to a short multiplexing execution delay, the agreement unit 262 of the computer 100-j. Causes the protocol data transmitting / receiving unit 23 to return the determined type of ordered multicast protocol data in which the input packet is set in the input packet field to the computer 100-j which is the sender of the candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data.

  When the confirmed type ordered multicast protocol data having an input sequence number matching the corresponding input sequence number is returned, the agreement unit 262 of the computer 100-4 receives the input packet in the confirmed type ordered multicast protocol data as the input packet. Confirm as That is, the agreement unit 262 of the sender of the candidate type of ordered multicast protocol data obtains an input packet agreed between other (nt) or more computers in a short stagnation period, and uses it as an input packet. Determine. If the confirmed input packet exists in the reception queue 1, the agreement unit 262 deletes the input packet from the reception queue 1, and the application program 3 or the logical time management unit 6 determines the input packet according to the processing type. Delivered to. In addition, the agreement unit 262 advances the corresponding input sequence number stored in the input sequence number storage unit 21 to the next step (increment by 1), and the corresponding step stored in the step number storage unit 24. Initialize the number. The agreement unit 262 discards all candidates stored in the candidate packet storage unit 25 and resets all (n−1) delay flags stored in the delay storage unit 28.

When the input packet determined from the agreement unit 262 is delivered from the agreement unit 262 (YES in Step 505), the logical time management unit 6 acquires the determined input packet. If the increment value set in the acquired confirmed input packet is equal to or longer than the second predetermined time (YES in step 506), the logical time management unit 6 advances the logical time by the increment value (step 507). .
On the other hand, when the confirmed input packet is delivered from the agreement unit 262, the application program 3 processes the confirmed input packet.

  By repeating the chasing process described above, the computer 100-4 eliminates the delay of the multiplexing execution and catches up with the state of the final input sequence number in the other computers 100-1 to 100-3 including the logical time. be able to. That is, when the computer 100-4 returns from a state in which it cannot participate in the consensus processing using the t-fault-tolerant Byzantine consensus algorithm, the computer 100-4 follows the packet for which the consensus has been confirmed in the other computers 100-1 to 100-3. Thus, it is possible to catch up with the state synchronized with the other computers 100-1 to 100-3 including the increment value.

  Next, regarding the agreement processing using the candidate packet with the agreement time interval as a candidate for the increment value, (t + 1) of the computers 100-1 to 100-4, that is, a period in which two computers stagnate occurred. An example will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 6 shows an example of the agreed time interval in each computer 100-i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) when such a period occurs. FIG. 7 shows a simplified example of the relationship between system time and logical time in each computer 100-i in such a case.

First, as shown in the example of FIG. 7, the agreement process is performed at a first predetermined time interval that is a reference update time interval, for example, an interval of one second from the time t ₀ when the distributed system 10 is started. Assume that the agreement has been finalized (the first agreement finalization). Here, as shown in the example of FIG. 6, it is assumed that the agreement processing is performed by all of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 and the agreement is confirmed. Then, after the first agreement is confirmed, it is assumed that the computer 100-4 has stagnated as shown in FIG.

  In the present embodiment where t is 1, even if the computer 100-4 is stagnant, the remaining computers 100-1 to 100-3 perform an agreement process using the t-fault-resistant Byzantine agreement algorithm to confirm the agreement. Can do. As a result, as shown in FIG. 7, the computers 100-1 to 100-3 make the second agreement confirmation one second after the first predetermined time interval from the first agreement decision. It is assumed that after the second agreement is confirmed, the computer 100-3 has newly stagnated as shown in FIG. At this time, the computer 100-4 is still stagnant.

  As described above, when the two computers 100-3 and 100-4 are stagnant, in the present embodiment where t = 1, the t-fault-resistant Byzantine agreement algorithm is executed only by the remaining computers 100-1 and 100-2. The consensus process used cannot be performed. For this reason, the agreement process is delayed.

  Thereafter, it is assumed that the computer 100-3 has recovered from the stagnation as shown in FIG. As a result, the agreement processing using the t-fault-resistant Byzantine agreement algorithm is performed again on the agreement time interval on the three computers 100-1 to 100-3. As a result, as shown in FIG. 7, it is assumed that the third agreement confirmation is made three seconds after the second agreement confirmation. Here, for simplification of explanation, without considering the error of the system time, the previous agreement time interval, that is, the update time of the logical time at the time of the second (previous) agreement confirmation and the first (previous) agreement It is assumed that the time interval with the update time of the logical time at the time of confirmation is 1 second that coincides with the first predetermined time. In this case, as shown in FIG. 7, the logical time of the computers 100-1 to 100-3 is updated from 2 seconds at the time of the second agreement confirmation to 3 seconds.

  As described above, the update time is determined based on the system time indicated by the system clock 9 of each computer 100-i. For this reason, even if each computer 100-i does not stagnate, an error occurs in the agreed time interval with respect to 1 second. Since this error differs for each computer 100-i, the agreed time interval used for the increment value candidate set in the candidate packet differs for each computer 100-i. Then, the increment value candidate set in the first agreed candidate packet is used as an increment value for updating the logical time of each computer 100-i participating in the agreement.

  Since the logical time at the time of the third agreement decision does not reflect the delay caused by the stagnation of the computers 100-3 and 100-4 after the second agreement decision, as shown in FIG. The actual delay time minus the first predetermined time (1 second). However, this gap will be resolved when the next agreement is finalized as described below.

  Here, it is assumed that the computer 100-4 has returned from the stagnation as shown in FIG. Then, the computer 100-4 uses the chasing process described above to determine a sequence of input packets that have been agreed upon by the other computers 100-1 to 100-3 while the computer 100-4 is stagnant. Get in order of input sequence number. The acquired confirmed input packet column includes the confirmed input packets (here, two input packets) regarding the increment value.

  Each time the logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-4 acquires a confirmed input packet related to the increment value, the logical time is set to the increment value based on the increment value set in the confirmed input packet. Advance (steps 506 and 507).

  As described above, in the present embodiment, the second agreement regarding the increment value (that is, the agreed time interval) performed in the other computers 100-1 to 100-3 while the computer 100-4 is stagnating for a short time. As shown in FIG. 6, the confirmation and the third agreement confirmation are executed by using the chasing process when the computer 100-4 returns from the stagnation. As a result, the logical time of the computer 100-4 can be synchronized with the logical time of the other computers 100-1 to 100-3.

  Each time the logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-4 updates the logical time, the previous update time is set as the previous update time, and the current time indicated by the system clock 9 is set as the previous update time. (Step 508). The confirmation of the agreement regarding the agreement time interval (more specifically, the update of the logical time based on the agreement confirmation) performed using the chasing process is performed as shown in FIG. The time interval is shorter than the confirmation.

  When the computer 100-4 catches up with the state of the last input sequence number in the other computers 100-1 to 100-3 including the logical time, the computers 100-1 to 100-4 again relate to the agreed time interval. An agreement is finalized. Increment value candidates set in the candidate packet used for the agreement process for confirming the agreement include the update time of the logical time at the third (previous) agreement decision and the second (previous) agreement decision The time interval with the update time of the logical time is used. If the candidate packet (logical time update request packet) agreed first is created by any of the logical time management units 6 of the computers 100-1 to 100-3, the increment value If the error is not considered, 3 seconds is used as the candidate. On the other hand, if the candidate packet agreed first is created by the logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-4, the increment value candidate is attributed to the chasing process described above. A time interval that is sufficiently shorter than the confirmation of the agreement regarding the agreement time interval in the normal state, that is, a time interval shorter than the second predetermined time is used.

  For this reason, when the candidate packet agreed first is created by the logical time management unit 6 of the computer 100-4, the increment value candidate set in the candidate packet is the second predetermined value. It is less than the time (NO in step 506). In this case, the logical time is not updated as described above, and the process returns from step 506 to step 501.

  Thereafter, based on the candidate packet created by the logical time management unit 6 of any one of the computers 100-1 to 100-3, the agreement processing is performed with respect to the agreed time interval on the four computers 100-1 to 100-4. For example, it is assumed that the agreement is confirmed for the fourth time as shown in FIG. 6 as an input packet one second after the agreement is confirmed for the third time (YES in step 505). In this case, the logical time management unit 6 of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 determines 3 seconds, which is a candidate for the increment value set in the confirmed input packet, as the confirmed increment value, and the increment. Based on the value, the logical time managed by itself is updated (steps 506 and 507). As a result, the logical times of the computers 100-1 to 100-4 are updated from 3 seconds at the time of the third agreement confirmation to 6 seconds as shown in FIG. 7, and are synchronized with the system time.

  By the way, as a mechanism for adjusting time with a plurality of computers, a method of adjusting in consideration of communication time such as a network time protocol (NTP) is known. Unlike such a method, in this embodiment, since the increment value is determined using the t-fault-tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm, it is possible to adjust to an accurate time regardless of which computer in the distributed system fails or stagnates. It becomes possible. In this embodiment, as the increment value candidate, an agreed time interval calculated from the system time at which the logical time was updated at the previous time and the previous time at each computer is used. Therefore, the system time differs between the computers. Is not a problem.

  In general, it takes about several milliseconds from the start of an agreement at each computer until the agreement is finalized, and the time varies from computer to computer. However, this time of about several milliseconds is a value that can be sufficiently ignored when compared with the time (several seconds or more) delayed by the stagnation. For this reason, in this embodiment, for simplification of explanation, the time required for the agreement process in each computer is set to zero, and the agreement is determined almost simultaneously.

  Note that the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment as it is, and can be embodied by modifying the constituent elements without departing from the scope of the invention in the implementation stage. In addition, various inventions can be formed by appropriately combining a plurality of components disclosed in the embodiment. For example, some components may be deleted from all the components shown in the embodiment.

  DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Input reception queue part (reception queue), 2 ... Alignment multicast part, 3 ... Application program, 4 ... Program state management part, 5 ... Output filter part, 6 ... Logical time management part, 7 ... Logical time storage part, 8 ... Update time storage unit, 9 ... System clock, 10 ... Distributed system, 21 ... Input sequence number storage unit, 22 ... Input packet journal storage unit, 23 ... Protocol data transmission / reception unit, 24 ... Step number storage unit, 25 ... Candidate packet Storage unit 26... Input packet determination determination unit 27 27 maximum determination input sequence number storage unit 28 28 delay storage unit 29 skip determination unit 100-1 to 100-4 100-i computer 261 input Candidate collection unit, 262 ... agreement unit, A, B ... network.

Claims (5)

Distributed processing by sending / receiving packets to / from each other by an ordered multicast means of (n−t) or more computers out of n computers connected to the network and using the t-fault-resistant Byzantine Byzantine agreement algorithm In a distributed system that performs
Each of the n computers
Logical time storage means for storing information of logical time updated by consensus processing executed at the first time interval;
An update time storage means for storing the first time as the system time when the logical time information was updated last time and the information of the second time as the system time updated last time;
Logic for calculating a candidate for an increment value used to update the information on the logical time from the time interval between the first time and the second time indicated by the information stored in the update time storage means Time management means, comprising: a logical time management means for determining an increment value using a t-fault-resistant Byzantine consensus algorithm based on a candidate for the increment value, and updating the logical time information with the determined increment value. Distributed system characterized by Each of the n computers includes a system clock,
When the logical time management means of the n computers updates the logical time information, based on the system time and the first time indicated by the system clock, the first time and the first time respectively. 2. The distributed system according to claim 1, wherein the time information of 2 is updated.   The second time interval is a time interval that is not more than the first time interval, and the determined increment value is a time interval that is not less than the second time interval. Distributed system.   The ordered multicasting means of the n computers, when the corresponding computer returns from a state in which it cannot participate in the agreement processing using the t-fault tolerant Byzantine agreement algorithm, Chasing to catch up with the other (nt) or more computers in synchronization with the other (nt) or more computers by acquiring packets whose agreement has been confirmed by (nt) or more computers 4. The distributed system according to claim 3, further comprising means. Distributed processing by sending and receiving packets to and from each other by an ordered multicast means of (n−t) or more computers out of n computers connected to the network and using the t-fault-resistant Byzantine Byzantine agreement algorithm A logical time storage means for storing logical time information updated by an agreement process executed at a first time interval in each of the n computers, and the logical time The logical time applied to the distributed system having the first time as the system time when the information of the last time was updated and the update time storage means for storing the information of the second time as the system time updated last time In the adjustment method,
From the time interval between the first time and the second time indicated by the information stored in the update time storage means, the (n−t) or more computers of the n computers are Calculating increment value candidates used to update logical time information;
The (nt) or more computers determine an increment value using a t-fault tolerant Byzantine consensus algorithm based on increment value candidates;
And (nt) or more computers comprising the step of updating the information of the logical time with the determined increment value.

Images