两位将军协议
我正在尝试在不可靠的通道上制定一个协议。基本上两方(A 和 B)必须同意做某事,所以这是两位将军的问题< /a>.
由于没有万无一失的解决方案,我正在尝试这样做。
- A 连续发送序列 1 的消息
- 当 B 收到 seq 1 时,它连续回复序列 2
- 此时 A 收到 seq 2 因此它开始发送 seq 3
- ...
我的问题。双方什么时候可以断定可以采取行动?显然我无法设置一个条件:“在收到 10 条消息后执行”,因为最后一个发件人无法确定消息 10 是否已到达 - 回到第一个方块。
另一个想法怎么样:
- 在预定的时间内保持这样的沟通。在此期间结束时,双方都会了解该渠道的可靠性。这样可以接受吗?
I am trying to figure an agreement protocol on an unreliable channel. Basically two parties (A and B) have to agree to do something, so it's the two generals' problem.
Since there is no bullet-proof solution, I am trying to do this.
- A continuously sends a message with sequence 1
- When B receives seq 1 it continuously replies with sequence 2
- At this point A receives seq 2 so it starts sending seq 3
- ...
My question. When can the two parties conclude that they can take the action ? Obviously I can't set a condition: "do it after receiving 10 messages" since the last sender won't have any certainty that message 10 arrived - back to square one.
How about another idea:
- Keep communicating like this for a predefined amount of time. At the end of that period both parties have an idea about the reliability of the channel. Would that be acceptable ?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(2)
这段java代码表明,对于两将军问题有一个合理的解决方案,可以最大限度地减少信使的生命风险和传输消息所花费的时间。在合理的时间范围内,重复确定性达到 99.9%。最坏的情况是,将军们花费无限的时间向对方发送信使穿过危险区域,表明他们还不确定,所有信使都被拦截,这种可能性是无限小的。在这种最坏的情况下,两位将军大多数时候都知道尚未达成协议。他们很可能不走运,其中一位将军做出了承诺,而另一位将军则犹豫不决。
该算法有一个明确的终点,其中每个将军可以有 99%(99 的数量可变)确定其他将军会承诺。它取决于选择多少时间来表示承诺的沉默。信使面临生命危险的人数被最小化。
结果,有点伪代码:
这个算法总是会得到 99。(一定数量的 9)重复百分比确定每个将军都会有另一个将军。唯一可能失败的方法是,如果所有信使总是被拦截,并且两位将军花费无限的时间发送信使穿过无法逾越的危险区域。
所需要的只是一个信使打通并发出通知,并使用沉默作为双方承诺的双向确认。
如果有 50/50 的机会穿越危险区域,则面临风险的资产或“生命”数量在 3 到 8 人之间。
This java code demonstrates that there is a reasonable solution to the two generals problem that minimizes both messenger lives risked and time taken to transfer the message. Given a reasonable amount of time, 99.9 repeated % certainty is reached. The worst case is an infinitely small chance that the generals spend infinite time sending messengers to the other across the dangerzone indicating that they are not yet sure, all messengers intercepted. In this worst case, most of the time the two generals know an agreement has not been reached. There is a tiny chance that they were unlucky and one general commits while the other hesitates.
There is a definite end-point to the algorithm where each general can be 99.(variable number of nines) percent certain the other will commit. It is based on how much time is selected for silence indicating commitment. The number of messenger lives risked is minimized.
Result, and kinda Pseudocode:
This algorithm will always result in 99.(certain number of nines) repeated percent sure for each general that the other will be there. The only way it can fail is if all messengers are always intercepted and the two generals spend infinite time sending messengers across an impassable danger zone.
All it takes is for one messenger to get through and boom, notification is achieved and silence is used as a the bi-directional confirmation for both to commit.
The number of assets or "lives" risked is between 3 and 8 given a 50/50 chance of making it through the danger zone.
您可以通过保存已发送的所有序列 ID 的当前状态来增加可靠性(类似于哈希函数的计算或 3DES 计算,甚至每条消息的 PKI 证书 - 后者会花费很多......)。 2个将军问题无法解决,但是有了有关该问题的更多信息,我想我可以给你一个更好的答案...
顺便说一句,无论你发送消息多少时间,可靠性问题都会在100小时后持续发生(不过,发生不良情况的可能性会降低)。这意味着您可能需要第三个对象 C,它知道 A 和 B,并且可以成为通信的见证人(类似于我提到的 PKI)。
You can add reliability by saving the current state of all sequences IDs that were sent (something like a calculation of a hash function or 3DES calculation or even a PKI certificate per message - the latter would cost a lot...). The 2 generals problem cannot be solved, but with more information about the problem, I think I can give you a better answer...
BTW, no matter how much time would you send message, the reliability problem would stay event after 100 hours (the probability of a bad occurance will decrease, though). That means maybe you need a third object C, that knows A and B, and can be a kind of a witness for the communication (something like PKI that I've mentioned).