SWIFT: A Distributed Real Time Commit Protocol

SWIFT: A Distributed Real Time Commit Protocol

Udai Shanker (M. M. M. Eng. College, India), Manoj Misra (IIT Roorkee, India) and Anil K. Sarje (IIT Roorkee, India)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-242-8.ch078
OnDemand PDF Download:
$30.00
List Price: $37.50

Abstract

Many applications such as military tracking, medical monitoring, stock arbitrage system, network management, aircraft control, factory automation, and so forth that depend heavily on database technology for the proper storage and retrieval of data located at different remote sites have certain timing constraints associated with them. Such applications introduce the need for distributed real-time database systems (DRTDBS) [Ramamritham, 1993]. The implementation of DRTDBS is difficult due to the conflicting requirements of maintaining data consistency and meeting distributed transaction’s deadlines. The difficulty comes from the unpredictability of the transactions’ response times [Huang, 1991]. Due to the distributed nature of the transactions and in presence of other sources of unpredictability such as data access conflicts, uneven distribution of transactions over the sites, variable local CPU scheduling time, communication delay, failure of coordinator and cohort’s sites, and so forth, it is not easy to meet the deadline of all transactions in DRTDBS [Kao & Garcia – Monila, 1995]. The unpredictability in the commitment phase makes it more serious because the blocking time of the waiting cohorts due to execute-commit conflict may become longer. Hence, due to unique characteristics of the committing transactions and unpredictability in the commitment process, design of an efficient commit protocol is an important issue that affects the performance of DRTDBS [Shanker, Misra & Sarje, 2006d].
Chapter Preview
Top

Background

The Two Phase Commit (2PC) is still one of the most commonly used protocols in the study of DRTDBS. Most of the existing commit protocols proposed in the literature, such as presumed commit (PC) and presumed abort (PA) [Haritsa, Ramamritham & Gupta, 2000] are based on it. Soparkar et al. [Nandit, Levy. Korth & Silberschatz, 1994] proposed a protocol that allows individual sites to unilaterally commit. If it is later found that the decision is not consistent globally then compensation transactions are executed to rectify errors. The problem with this approach is that many actions are irreversible in nature. The 2PC based optimistic commit protocol (OPT) [Gupta, Haritsa & Ramamritham, 1997] for real-time databases try to improve system concurrency by allowing executing transactions to borrow data from the transactions in their commit stage. This creates dependencies among transactions. If a transaction depends on other transactions, it is not allowed to start commit processing and is blocked until the transactions, on which it depends, have committed. The blocked committing transaction may include a chain of dependencies as other executing transactions may have data conflicts with it. Enhancement has been made in the Permits Reading of Modified Prepared-Data for Timeliness (PROMPT) commit protocol, which allows executing transactions to borrow data in a controlled manner only from the healthy transactions in their commit phase [Haritsa, Ramamritham & Gupta, 2000]. However, it does not consider the type of dependencies between two transactions. The abort of a lending transaction aborts all the transactions dependent on it. The impact of buffer space and admission control is also not studied. In case of sequential transaction execution model, the borrower is blocked for sending the workdone message and the next cohort can not be activated at other site for its execution. It will be held up till the lender completes. If its sibling is activated at another site anyway, the cohort at this new site will not get the result of previous site because previous cohort has been blocked for sending of workdone message due to being borrower [Shanker, Misra, Sarje & Shisondia, 2006c]. In shadow PROMPT, a cohort forks of a replica of the transaction without considering the type of dependency, called a shadow, whenever it borrows a data page.

Key Terms in this Chapter

Atomic Commit Protocols: Ensures that either all the effects of the transaction persist or none of them persist despite of the site or communication link failures and loss of messages.

Yes Vote Message: When a cohort receives a VOTE REQ, it responds by sending a yes or no vote message (Yes or NO VOTE, Yes Vote also known as PREPARED message) to the coordinator.

WORKDONE/PREPARED Message: This message is send by cohort after completion of processing.

Distributed Real Time Database Systems: Collection of multiple, logically inter-related databases distributed over a computer network where transactions have explicit timing constraints, usually in the form of deadlines.

Firm Real Time Transaction: A firm real time transaction loses its value after its deadline expires.

WORKSTARTED Messages: The execution phase of a cohort is divided into two parts locking phase and processing phase, and in place of Workdone message, a WORKSTARTED message is sent just before the start of processing phase of the cohort.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset