A comparative analysis of two-phase-commit protocols

  • Ouri Wolfson
Fault Tolerance
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 470)

Abstract

We compare the performance of four variants of the two-phase-commit paradigm, in the absence of failures. They are tree-commit ([SW1]), the decentralized ([Sk]), the linear ([G]), and the central-site ([LS]) algorithms. The performance measures are communication cost and communication time. We find that the communication cost of tree-commit is equal to that of the linear and central-site algorithms, its communication time cannot be worse, but it can be twice as fast. The communication time of the decentralized algorithm is better than that of tree-commit, whereas tree-commit wins as far as communication cost is concerned. When comparing the communication-complexity of the two algorithms, namely the product of the communication cost and the communication time, tree-commit wins.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BHG]
    P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems Addison Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [CP]
    S. Ceri and G. Pelagatti, Distributed Database Principles and Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. [DS1]
    C. Dwork and D. Skeen, "The Inherent Cost of Nonblocking Commitment", Prod. 2nd ACM Symp. on PODC, pp. 1–11, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. [DS2]
    C. Dwork and D. Skeen, "Patterns of Communication in Consensus Protocols", Proc. 3rd ACM Symp. on PODC, pp. 143–153, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [E]
    S. Even, Graph Algorithms, Computer Science Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. [F]
    M. Fischer, The Consensus Problem in Unreliable Distributed Systems (a brief survey), Technical Report YALEU/DCS-/RR-273, Yale University, June 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [G]
    J.N. Gray, "Notes on Database Operating Systems," Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. [H1]
    V. Hadzilacos, "On the Relationship between the Atomic Commitment and Consensus Problems," Proc. of the Workshop on Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing Springer Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [H2]
    V. Hadzilacos, "A Knowledge Theoretic Analysis of Atomic Commitment Protocols," Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on PODS, pp. 129–134, 1987. A revised version has been submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. [HHL]
    S. Hadetniemi, S. Hadetniemi, and A. Liestman, "A Survey of Gossiping and Broadcasting in Communication Networks," Networks Vol. 18 pp. 319–349, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [I]
    A. Itai, Unpublished result, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [L]
    L. Lamport, "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System," CACM, 21(7), pp. 558–565, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. [LHJLSW]
    B. Liskov, M. Herlihy, P. Johnson, G. Leavens, R. Scheifler, and W. Weihl, "Preliminary Argus Reference Manual", Programming Methodology Group Memo 39, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [LS]
    B. Lampson and H. Sturgis, "Crash Recovery in a Distributed Database System," TR, Xerox PARC, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. [MLO]
    C. Mohan, B. Lindsay, and R. Obermack, "Transaction Management in the R* Distributed Database Management System," TODS, 11(4), pp. 378–396, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. [ML]
    C. Mohan, B. Lindsay, "Efficient Commit Protocols for the Tree of Processes Model of Distributed Transactions" Proc. 2nd ACM Symp. on PODC, pp. 76–88, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. [R]
    K.V.S. Ramarao, "On the Complexity of Commit Protocols," Proc. 4th ACM Symp. on PODS, pp. 235–244, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. [Sk]
    D. Skeen, "Nonblocking Commit Protocols," Proc. ACM SIGMOD, pp. 133–142, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. [Sp]
    A. Spector, "Modular Architectures for Distributed and Database Systems," Proc 8th ACM Symp. on PODS, pp. 217–224, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [SW1]
    A. Segall, O. Wolfson, "Transaction Commitment at Minimal Communication Cost", Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), San Diego CA, March 1987, pp. 112–118.Google Scholar
  21. [SW2]
    A. Segall, O. Wolfson, "Optimal Communication Topologies for Atomic Commitment" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Data Engineering (DE4), Los Angeles, CA, February 1988, pp. 51–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ouri Wolfson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceColumbia UniversityNew York

Personalised recommendations