Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2588555.2588562acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Scalable atomic visibility with RAMP transactions

Published: 18 June 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Databases can provide scalability by partitioning data across several servers. However, multi-partition, multi-operation transactional access is often expensive, employing coordination-intensive locking, validation, or scheduling mechanisms. Accordingly, many real-world systems avoid mechanisms that provide useful semantics for multi-partition operations. This leads to incorrect behavior for a large class of applications including secondary indexing, foreign key enforcement, and materialized view maintenance. In this work, we identify a new isolation model---Read Atomic (RA) isolation---that matches the requirements of these use cases by ensuring atomic visibility: either all or none of each transaction's updates are observed by other transactions. We present algorithms for Read Atomic Multi-Partition (RAMP) transactions that enforce atomic visibility while offering excellent scalability, guaranteed commit despite partial failures (via synchronization independence), and minimized communication between servers (via partition independence). These RAMP transactions correctly mediate atomic visibility of updates and provide readers with snapshot access to database state by using limited multi-versioning and by allowing clients to independently resolve non-atomic reads. We demonstrate that, in contrast with existing algorithms, RAMP transactions incur limited overhead---even under high contention---and scale linearly to 100 servers.

References

[1]
D. J. Abadi. Consistency tradeoffs in modern distributed database system design: CAP is only part of the story. IEEE Computer, 45(2):37--42, 2012.
[2]
A. Adya. Weak consistency: a generalized theory and optimistic implementations for distributed transactions. PhD thesis, MIT, 1999.
[3]
D. Agrawal and V. Krishnaswamy. Using multiversion data for non-interfering execution of write-only transactions. In SIGMOD 1991.
[4]
H. Attiya and J. Welch. Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics (2nd edition). John Wiley Interscience, March 2004.
[5]
P. Bailis, A. Davidson, A. Fekete, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Highly Available Transactions: Virtues and Limitations. In VLDB 2014.
[6]
P. Bailis, A. Fekete, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. The potential dangers of causal consistency and an explicit solution. In SOCC 2012.
[7]
J. Baker, C. Bond, J. Corbett, J. Furman, et al. Megastore: Providing scalable, highly available storage for interactive services. In CIDR 2011.
[8]
P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-wesley New York, 1987.
[9]
K. Birman, G. Chockler, and R. van Renesse. Toward a cloud computing research agenda. SIGACT News, 40(2):68--80, June 2009.
[10]
B. H. Bloom. Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors. CACM, 13(7):422--426, 1970.
[11]
N. Bronson, Z. Amsden, G. Cabrera, P. Chukka, P. Dimov, et al. TAO: Facebook's distributed data store for the social graph. In USENIX ATC 2013.
[12]
A. Chan and R. Gray. Implementing distributed read-only transactions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, (2):205--212, 1985.
[13]
F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, W. C. Hsieh, D. A. Wallach, M. Burrows, et al. Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data. In OSDI 2006.
[14]
R. Chirkova and J. Yang. Materialized views. Foundations and Trends in Databases, 4(4):295--405, 2012.
[15]
B. F. Cooper, R. Ramakrishnan, U. Srivastava, A. Silberstein, P. Bohannon, et al. PNUTS: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform. In VLDB 2008.
[16]
B. F. Cooper, A. Silberstein, E. Tam, R. Ramakrishnan, and R. Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. In ACM SOCC 2010.
[17]
J. C. Corbett, J. Dean, M. Epstein, A. Fikes, C. Frost, J. J. Furman, et al. Spanner: Google's globally-distributed database. In OSDI 2012.
[18]
C. Curino, E. Jones, Y. Zhang, and S. Madden. Schism: a workload-driven approach to database replication and partitioning. In VLDB 2010.
[19]
S. Das, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. G-store: a scalable data store for transactional multi key access in the cloud. In ACM SOCC 2010.
[20]
K. Daudjee and K. Salem. Lazy database replication with ordering guarantees. In ICDE 2004, pages 424--435.
[21]
S. Davidson, H. Garcia-Molina, and D. Skeen. Consistency in partitioned networks. ACM Computing Surveys, 17(3):341--370, 1985.
[22]
G. DeCandia, D. Hastorun, M. Jampani, G. Kakulapati, A. Lakshman, et al. Dynamo: Amazon's highly available key-value store. In SOSP 2007.
[23]
S. Gilbert and N. Lynch. Brewer's conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News, 33(2):51--59, 2002.
[24]
J. Gray and L. Lamport. Consensus on transaction commit. ACM TODS, 31(1):133--160, Mar. 2006.
[25]
P. Helland. Life beyond distributed transactions: an apostate's opinion. In CIDR 2007.
[26]
S. Hull. 20 obstacles to scalability. Commun. ACM, 56(9):54--59, 2013.
[27]
N. Huyn. Maintaining global integrity constraints in distributed databases. Constraints, 2(3/4):377--399, Jan. 1998.
[28]
E. P. Jones, D. J. Abadi, and S. Madden. Low overhead concurrency control for partitioned main memory databases. In SIGMOD 2010.
[29]
R. Kallman, H. Kimura, J. Natkins, A. Pavlo, et al. H-Store: a high-performance, distributed main memory transaction processing system. In VLDB 2008.
[30]
R. J. Lipton and J. S. Sandberg. PRAM: a scalable shared memory. Technical Report TR-180--88, Princeton University, September 1988.
[31]
F. Llirbat, E. Simon, D. Tombroff, et al. Using versions in update transactions: Application to integrity checking. In VLDB 1997.
[32]
W. Lloyd, M. J. Freedman, et al. Don't settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In SOSP 2011.
[33]
W. Lloyd, M. J. Freedman, M. Kaminsky, and D. G. Andersen. Stronger semantics for low-latency geo-replicated storage. In NSDI 2013.
[34]
C. Mohan. History repeats itself: Sensible and NonsenSQL aspects of the NoSQL hoopla. In EDBT 2013.
[35]
A. Pavlo, C. Curino, and S. Zdonik. Skew-aware automatic database partitioning in shared-nothing, parallel OLTP systems. In SIGMOD 2012.
[36]
D. Peng and F. Dabek. Large-scale incremental processing using distributed transactions and notifications. In OSDI 2010.
[37]
S. H. Phatak and B. Badrinath. Multiversion reconciliation for mobile databases. In ICDE 1999.
[38]
L. Qiao, K. Surlaker, S. Das, T. Quiggle, et al. On brewing fresh Espresso: LinkedIn's distributed data serving platform. In SIGMOD 2013.
[39]
N. Schiper, P. Sutra, and F. Pedone. P-store: Genuine partial replication in wide area networks. In IEEE SRDS 2010.
[40]
M. Shapiro et al. A comprehensive study of convergent and commutative replicated data types. Technical Report 7506, INRIA, 2011.
[41]
J. Shute et al. F1: A distributed SQL database that scales. In VLDB 2013.
[42]
D. B. Terry, A. J. Demers, K. Petersen, M. J. Spreitzer, M. M. Theimer, and B. B. Welch. Session guarantees for weakly consistent replicated data. In PDIS 1994.
[43]
A. Thomson, T. Diamond, S. Weng, K. Ren, P. Shao, and D. Abadi. Calvin: Fast distributed transactions for partitioned database systems. In SIGMOD 2012.
[44]
K. Weil. Rainbird: Real-time analytics at Twitter. Strata 2011 http://slidesha.re/hjMOui.
[45]
S. B. Zdonik. Object-oriented type evolution. In DBPL, pages 277--288, 1987.
[46]
J. Zhou et al. Lazy maintenance of materialized views. In VLDB 2007

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Towards Optimal Transaction SchedulingProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3681954.368195617:11(2694-2707)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Transaktionale Semantik für global verteilte AnwendungenSchnelles und skalierbares Cloud-Datenmanagement10.1007/978-3-031-54388-3_6(141-159)Online publication date: 3-May-2024
  • (2022)Natto: Providing Distributed Transaction Prioritization for High-Contention WorkloadsProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data10.1145/3514221.3526161(715-729)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGMOD '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
June 2014
1645 pages
ISBN:9781450323765
DOI:10.1145/2588555
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 June 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. atomic visibility
  2. atomicity
  3. non-blocking
  4. performance
  5. read atomic
  6. scalability
  7. transactions

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGMOD/PODS'14
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SIGMOD '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 107 of 421 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 785 of 4,003 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)29
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Towards Optimal Transaction SchedulingProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3681954.368195617:11(2694-2707)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Transaktionale Semantik für global verteilte AnwendungenSchnelles und skalierbares Cloud-Datenmanagement10.1007/978-3-031-54388-3_6(141-159)Online publication date: 3-May-2024
  • (2022)Natto: Providing Distributed Transaction Prioritization for High-Contention WorkloadsProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data10.1145/3514221.3526161(715-729)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Ensuring Consistent Transactions in a Web Service Environment With Prediction-Based Performance MetricsIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2020.297473315:2(1045-1058)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Competitive Consistent Caching for Transactions2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE53745.2022.00207(2154-2167)Online publication date: May-2022
  • (2022)Database Consistency ModelsEncyclopedia of Big Data Technologies10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_203-2(1-12)Online publication date: 24-May-2022
  • (2021)RAMP-TAOProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3476311.347637914:12(3014-3027)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Repairing serializability bugs in distributed database programs via automated schema refactoringProceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation10.1145/3453483.3454028(32-47)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2021
  • (2020)Fault-tolerant and transactional stateful serverless workflowsProceedings of the 14th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation10.5555/3488766.3488833(1187-1204)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2020
  • (2020)Performance-optimal read-only transactionsProceedings of the 14th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation10.5555/3488766.3488785(333-349)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media