Revisiting Commit Processing in Distributed Database Systems.

@inproceedings{DBLP:conf/sigmod/GuptaHR97,
  author    = {Ramesh Gupta and
               Jayant R. Haritsa and
               Krithi Ramamritham},
  editor    = {Joan Peckham},
  title     = {Revisiting Commit Processing in Distributed Database Systems},
  booktitle = {SIGMOD 1997, Proceedings ACM SIGMOD International Conference
               on Management of Data, May 13-15, 1997, Tucson, Arizona, USA},
  publisher = {ACM Press},
  year      = {1997},
  pages     = {486-497},
  ee        = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/253260.253366, db/conf/sigmod/GuptaHR97.html},
  crossref  = {DBLP:conf/sigmod/97},
  bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de}
}

Abstract

A significant body of literature is available on distributed transaction commit protocols. Surprisingly, however, the relative merits of these protocols have not been studied with respect to their quantitative impact on transaction processing performance. In this paper, using a detailed simulation model of a distributed database system, we profile the transaction throughput performance of a representative set of commit protocols. A new commit protocol, OPT, that allows transactions to "optimistically" borrow uncommitted data in a controlled manner is also proposed and evaluated. The new protocol is easy to implement and incorporate in current systems, and can coexist with most other optimizations proposed earlier. For example, OPT can be combined with current industry standard protocols such as Presumed Commit, and Presumed Abort.

The experimental results show that distributed commit processing can have considerably more influence than distributed data processing on the throughput performance and that the choice of commit protocol clearly affects the magnitude of this influence. Among the protocols evaluated, the new optimistic commit protocol provides the best transaction throughput performance for a variety of workloads and system configurations. In fact, OPT's peak throughput is often close to the upper bound on achievable performance. Even more interestingly, a three-phase (i.e., non-blocking) version of OPT provides better peak throughput performance than all of the standard two-phase (i.e., blocking) protocols evaluated in our study.

Copyright © 1997 by the ACM, Inc., used by permission. Permission to make digital or hard copies is granted provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or direct commercial advantage, and that copies show this notice on the first page or initial screen of a display along with the full citation.

ACM SIGMOD Anthology

CDROM Version: Load the CDROM "Volume 1 Issue 1, SIGMOD '93-'97" and ...

• Windows: Click the letter of your CD drive
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
• Mac: Click here
• UNIX/LINUX: mount the CD and click on the path of your mount point:
  /Anthology/smod9397 or /cdrom

• Windows: Click the letter of your CD drive
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
• Mac: Click here
• UNIX/LINUX: mount the DVD and click on the path of your mount point:
  /Anthology/aDVD1 or /dvd

Printed Edition

Online Edition: ACM Digital Library

References

[1]

...

[2]

Rakesh Agrawal, Michael J. Carey, Miron Livny: Concurrency Control Performance Modeling: Alternatives and Implications. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 12(4): 609-654(1987) BibTeX

[3]

...

[4]

...

[5]

Philip A. Bernstein, Vassos Hadzilacos, Nathan Goodman: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley 1987, ISBN 0-201-10715-5
Contents BibTeX

[6]

Michael J. Carey, Sanjay Krishnamurthi, Miron Livny: Load Control for Locking: The 'Half-and-Half' Approach. PODS 1990: 72-84 BibTeX

[7]

Michael J. Carey, Miron Livny: Distributed Concurrency Control Performance: A Study of Algorithms, Distribution, and Replication. VLDB 1988: 13-25 BibTeX

[8]

Michael J. Carey, Miron Livny: Parallelism and Concurrency Control Performance in Distributed Database Machines. SIGMOD Conference 1989: 122-133 BibTeX

[9]

Michael J. Carey, Miron Livny: Conflict Detection Tradeoffs for Replicated Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 16(4): 703-746(1991) BibTeX

[10]

Kapali P. Eswaran, Jim Gray, Raymond A. Lorie, Irving L. Traiger: The Notions of Consistency and Predicate Locks in a Database System. Commun. ACM 19(11): 624-633(1976) BibTeX

[11]

...

[12]

...

[13]

Jim Gray: Notes on Data Base Operating Systems. Advanced Course: Operating Systems 1978: 393-481 BibTeX

[14]

...

[15]

Bruce G. Lindsay, Laura M. Haas, C. Mohan, Paul F. Wilms, Robert A. Yost: Computation and Communication in R*: A Distributed Database Manager. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2(1): 24-38(1984) BibTeX

[16]

Butler W. Lampson, David B. Lomet: A New Presumed Commit Optimization for Two Phase Commit. VLDB 1993: 630-640 BibTeX

[17]

...

[18]

C. Mohan, Dick Dievendorff: Recent Work on Distributed Commit Protocolls, and Recoverable Messaging and Queuing. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 17(1): 22-28(1994) BibTeX

[19]

C. Mohan, Bruce G. Lindsay, Ron Obermarck: Transaction Management in the R* Distributed Database Management System. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 11(4): 378-396(1986) BibTeX

[20]

M. Tamer Özsu, Patrick Valduriez: Principles of Distributed Database Systems. Prentice-Hall 1991, ISBN 0-13-715681-2
BibTeX

[21]

George Samaras, Kathryn Britton, Andrew Citron, C. Mohan: Two-Phase Commit Optimizations in a Commercial Distributed Environment. Distributed and Parallel Databases 3(4): 325-360(1995) BibTeX

[22]

...

[23]

James W. Stamos, Flaviu Cristian: Coordinator Log Transaction Execution Protocol. Distributed and Parallel Databases 1(4): 383-408(1993) BibTeX

[24]

Peter M. Spiro, Ashok M. Joshi, T. K. Rengarajan: Designing an Optimized Transaction Committ Protocol. Digital Technical Journal 3(1): 0-(1991) BibTeX

[25]

Dale Skeen: Nonblocking Commit Protocols. SIGMOD Conference 1981: 133-142 BibTeX

[26]

Michael Stonebraker: Concurrency Control and Consistency of Multiple Copies of Data in Distributed INGRES. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 5(3): 188-194(1979) BibTeX