Communication-Induced Checkpointing with Message Logging beyond the Piecewise Deterministic (PWD) Model for Distributed Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments/Questions

1. There are some grammatical errors in the manuscript. Please improve.

2. Please consider to use the full term of "the Piece-wise Deterministic (PWD) Model", rather than just the term of "PWD" in the title.

3. How to assure the completeness and correctness of the proposed protocol? The author considers many cases in the proof of Theorem 2. How to assure that these cases are complete?

Suggestion

Title, Page 1

beyond PWD Model 

=> beyond the Piece-wise Deterministic (PWD) Model

Line 170

to PWD model

=> to the PWD model

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I'm soryy but I have to Reject this paper (article has serious flaws, additional experiments needed, research not conducted correctly).

The article contains identical paragraphs taken from another article by the same
author without referring to this aspect. Differentiation must be made, plus there are
no concrete results, simulations (only some graphics without explanations), tests, comparisons, no related work, etc.
From my point of view, in the form it is now, it cannot be accepted in an Electronics journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper introduces a new communication-induced check-pointing protocol with message logging to achieve this goal only by carrying a one-bit variable and an n-size vector on each sent message. The existing protocols of this class support a process receiving a message to take extra checkpoints, if its sender’s information piggybacked on it indicates that the sender’s state right before sending it is recoverable, the protocol performs no forced check-pointing. Therefore, the proposed protocol is very efficient. However, some improvements are necessary in this manuscript:

1. An acronym PWD in a title should be replaced by a full acronym expansion;
2. Use a space in citations such as “application[1]” => “application [1]”;
3. A proof of Theorem 2 is too long (lines 272- 361). 1 or 2 Lemmas could simplify the proof.
4. (Figure 4 and 5) There is a lack of Return from modules;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf