Brief Announcement: Revisiting Lower Bounds for Two-Step Consensus

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}.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3732772.3733541
Primary Topic
Distributed systems and fault tolerance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Brief Announcement: Revisiting Lower Bounds for Two-Step Consensus

Pierre Sutra, Fedor Ryabinin, Alexey Gotsman
Distributed systems and fault tolerance
article

Brief Announcement: Revisiting Lower Bounds for Two-Step Consensus

Pierre Sutra, Fedor Ryabinin, Alexey Gotsman
article en

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}.

Centre Inria de Saclay (FR), Institut Polytechnique de Paris (FR), IMDEA Software Institute (ES), Télécom SudParis (FR), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
Agencia Estatal de Investigación, CHIST-ERA
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Distributed systems and fault tolerance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Brief Announcement: Revisiting Lower Bounds for Two-Step Consensus — Pierre Sutra, Fedor Ryabinin, et al. · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS