Weighted voting for operation dependent management of replicated data

  • Mirjana Obradovic
  • Piotr Berman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 486)

Abstract

We consider the problem of finding an optimal static pessimistic replica control scheme. It has been recognized that operation mix plays an important role in finding optimal schemes. We demonstrate that voting provides the highest possible availability for fully connected networks and Ethernet systems for the cases of one or two operations. We introduce a technique for reducing the number of operations considered in the analysis. Using this technique we extend the above results to all cases of three operations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Ahamad, M.H. Ammar. Performance Characterization of Quorum-Consensus Algorithms for Replicated Data. IEEE Conf. on Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, 1987, pp. 161–167.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S.Y. Cheung, M. Ahamad, M.H. Ammar. Optimizing Vote and Quorum Assignments for Reading and Writing Replicated Data. Proc. of Fifth Int. Conference on Data Engineering 1989, pp. 271–279.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S.B. Davidson, H. Garcia-Molina, D. Skeen. Consistency in Partitioned Networks. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.17, No.3, Sep. 1985, pp. 341–370.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Garcia-Molina, D. Barbara. Optimizing the Reliability Provided by Voting Mechanisms. Proc. of Fourth International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Oct. 1984, pp. 340–346.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. Garcia-Molina, D. Barbara. How to Assign Votes in a Distributed System. Journal of ACM, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct. 1985, pp. 841–860.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D.K. Gifford. Weighted Voting for Replicated Data. Proc. of Seventh ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, Dec. 1979, pp. 150–162.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Herlihy. A Quorum-Consensus Replication Method for Abstract Data Types. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, Feb. 1986, pp. 32–53.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Jajodia, D. Mutchler. Dynamic Voting. Proc. of ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, 1987, pp. 227–238.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Obradovic, P. Berman. Voting as the Optimal Static Pessimistic Scheme for Managing Replicated Data. Proc. of Ninth IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 1990, pp. 126–135.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Rosenthal. Computing the Reliability of a Complex Network. SIAM J. Appl. Math., vol. 32, pp. 384–393, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Tang, N. Natarajan. A static Pessimistic Scheme for Handling Replicated Databases. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J.-F. Paris, D. Long. Efficient Dynamic Voting Algorithms. Proc. of Fourth Int. Conference on Data Engineering, Feb. 1988, 268–275.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    R.H. Thomas. A Majority Consensus Approach to Concurrency Control for Replicated Databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 4, No. 2, June 1979, pp. 180–209.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Z. Tong, R.Y. Kain. Vote Assignments in Weighted Voting Mechanisms. Proc. of Seventh Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 1988, pp. 138–143.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirjana Obradovic
    • 1
  • Piotr Berman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science 333 Whitmore LaboratoryPenn State UniversityUniversity Park

Personalised recommendations