A low-cost atomic commit protocol

Stamos, James W.; Cristian, Flaviu

doi:10.1109/reldis.1990.93952

Cited by 49 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As observed in [44], 1-delay commit protocols proposed in [45,46] assumes that all processes propose 1 before an execution starts. Jiménez-Peris et al proposed a commit service which has the same latency as 2PC but allows a process to decide twice and differently.…”

Section: Low-latency Commit Protocols With Weak Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Fast can a Distributed Transaction Commit?

Guerraoui

Wang

2017

Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The atomic commit problem lies at the heart of distributed database systems. The problem consists for a set of processes (database nodes) to agree on whether to commit or abort a transaction (agreement property). The commit decision can only be taken if all processes are initially willing to commit the transaction, and this decision must be taken if all processes are willing to commit and there is no failure (validity property). An atomic commit protocol is said to be non-blocking if every correct process (a database node that does not fail) eventually reaches a decision (commit or abort) even if there are failures elsewhere in the distributed database system (termination property).Surprisingly, despite the importance of the atomic commit problem, little is known about its complexity. In this paper, we present, for the first time, a systematic study on the time and message complexity of the problem. We measure complexity in the executions that are considered the most frequent in practice, i.e., failure-free, with all processes willing to commit. In other words, we measure how fast a transaction can commit. Through our systematic study, we close many open questions like the complexity of synchronous non-blocking atomic commit. We also present optimal protocols which may be of independent interest. In particular, we present an effective protocol which solves what we call indulgent atomic commit that tolerates practical distributed database systems which are synchronous "most of the time".

show abstract

Section: Low-latency Commit Protocols With Weak Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Fast can a Distributed Transaction Commit?

Guerraoui

Wang

2017

Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In presumed commit it is cheaper to commit a transaction than to abort [15]. Early prepare protocol gives low committing cost on the assumption that every site goes to the prepared state after acknowledging the last executed operation [13]. So there is not need for coordinator to send explicit prepared request to all participants.…”

Section: Variances Of Two-phase Commit Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Short-Commit in Extreme Database Environment

Shahzad¹,

Rizwan²

2011

IJDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that the delay observed by the client before it can start the next transaction is due to phase 1 only; phase 2 happens in the background. Phase 1 includes two stable log updates, but the optimizations suggested by Stamos [26] can reduce this to a single log update.…”

Section: The Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficient optimistic concurrency control using loosely synchronized clocks

Adya

Gruber

Liskov

et al. 1995

Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data - SIGMOD '95

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes an efficient optimistic concurrency control scheme for use in distributed database systems in which objects are cached and manipulated at client machines while persistent storage and transactional support are provided by servers. The scheme provides both serializability and external consistency for committed transactions; it uses loosely synchronized clocks to achieve global serialization. It stores only a single version of each object, and avoids maintaining any concurrency control information on a perobject basis; instead, it tracks recent invalidations on a per-client basis, an approach that has low in-memory space overhead and no per-object disk overhead. In addition to its low space overheads, the scheme also performs well. The paper presents a simulation study that compares the scheme to adaptive callback locking, the best concurrency control scheme for client-server object-oriented database systems studied to date. The study shows that our scheme outperforms adaptive callback locking for low to moderate contention workloads, and scales better with the number of clients. For high contention workloads, optimism can result in a high abort rate; the scheme presented here is a first step toward a hybrid scheme that we expect to perform well across the full range of workloads.

show abstract

A low-cost atomic commit protocol

Cited by 49 publications

References 11 publications

How Fast can a Distributed Transaction Commit?

How Fast can a Distributed Transaction Commit?

Performance of Short-Commit in Extreme Database Environment

Efficient optimistic concurrency control using loosely synchronized clocks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About