| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10331305 | Information Processing Letters | 2005 | 4 Pages |
Abstract
The definition of sequential consistency is compared with an intuitive notion of correctness. That the definition is not strong enough is illustrated through a hypothetical memory system which is clearly incorrect, yet sequentially consistent. It is claimed that the reason for this is the absence of a relation between what actually happens (temporal order) and what seems to happen (logical order). A stronger version of sequential consistency is proposed.
Related Topics
Physical Sciences and Engineering
Computer Science
Computational Theory and Mathematics
Authors
Ali Sezgin, Ganesh Gopalakrishnan,