Advertisement

Managing Geo-replicated Data in Multi-datacenters

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7813)

Abstract

Over the past few years, cloud computing and the growth of global large scale computing systems have led to applications which require data management across multiple datacenters. Initially the models provided single row level transactions with eventual consistency. Although protocols based on these models provide high availability, they are not ideal for applications needing a consistent view of the data. There has been now a gradual shift to provide transactions with strong consistency with Google’s Megastore and Spanner. We propose protocols for providing full transactional support while replicating data in multi-datacenter environments. First, an extension of Megastore is presented, which uses optimistic concurrency control. Second, a contrasting method is put forward, which uses gossip-based protocol for providing distributed transactions across datacenters. Our aim is to propose and evaluate different approaches for geo-replication which may be beneficial for diverse applications.

Keywords

Cloud Computing Concurrency Control Serializable Execution Operating System Principle Snapshot Isolation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chang, F., Dean, J., Ghemawat, S., Hsieh, W.C., Wallach, D.A., Burrows, M., Chandra, T., Fikes, A., Gruber, R.E.: Bigtable: a distributed storage system for structured data. In: Proc. 7th USENIX Symp. Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 15–28 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper, B.F., Ramakrishnan, R., Srivastava, U., Silberstein, A., Bohannon, P., Jacobsen, H.A., Puz, N., Weaver, D., Yerneni, R.: Pnuts: Yahoo!’s hosted data serving platform. Proc. VLDB Endow. 1(2), 1277–1288 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muthukkaruppan, K.: The underlying technology of messages (2011) (acc. October 5, 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKusick, K., Quinlan, S.: Gfs: evolution on fast-forward. Commun. ACM 53(3), 42–49 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker, J., Bond, C., Corbett, J., Furman, J., Khorlin, A., Larson, J., Leon, J.M., Li, Y., Lloyd, A., Yushprakh, V.: Megastore: Providing scalable, highly available storage for interactive services. In: Conf. Innovative Data Systems Research, pp. 223–234 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Das, S., Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: G-Store: A scalable data store for transactional multi key access in the cloud. In: Proc. 1st ACM Symp. Cloud Computing, pp. 163–174 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Das, S., Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: Elastras: An elastic transactional data store in the cloud. In: USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (2009); An expanded version of this paper will appear in the ACM Transactions on Database SystemsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amazon.com: Summary of the Amazon EC2 and Amazon RDS service disruption in the US East Region (2011) (acc. October 5, 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butcher, M.: Amazon EC2 goes down, taking with it Reddit, Foursquare and Quora (April 2011) (acc. October 5, 2011) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene, A.: Lightning strike causes Amazon, Microsoft cloud outage in Europe. TechFlash (August 2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corbett, J., Dean, J., Epstein, M., Fikes, A., Frost, C., Furman, J., Ghemawat, S., Gubarev, A., Heiser, C., Hochschild, P., et al.: Spanner: Google’s globally-distributed database. To Appear in Proceedings of OSDI,  1 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chandra, T.D., Griesemer, R., Redstone, J.: Paxos made live: an engineering perspective. In: Proc. 26th ACM Symp. Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 398–407 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamport, L.: Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News 32(4), 18–25 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Renesse, R.: Paxos made moderately complex. Technical Report (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gifford, D.: Weighted voting for replicated data. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 150–162. ACM (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stonebraker, M.: Concurrency Control and Consistency in Multiple Copies of Data in Distributed INGRES. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3(3), 188–194 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas, R.H.: A Majority Consensus Approach to Concurrency Control for Multiple Copy Databases. ACM Transaction on Database Systems 4(2), 180–209 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernstein, P.A., Goodman, N.: An Algorithm for Concurrency Control and Recovery in Replicated Distributed Databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 9(4), 596–615 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herlihy, M.: Replication Methods for Abstract Data Types. PhD thesis, Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (May 1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Birman, K.P.: Replication and Fault-tolerance in the ISIS System. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 79–86 (December 1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    El Abbadi, A., Skeen, D., Cristian, F.: An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Protocol for Replicated Data Management. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 215–228 (March 1985)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    El Abbadi, A., Toueg, S.: Availability in partitioned replicated databases. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 240–251 (March 1986)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garcia-Molina, H., Barbara, D.: How to assign votes in a distributed system. Journal of the Association of the Computing Machinery 32(4), 841–860 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herlihy, M.: A Quorum-Consensus Replication Method for Abstract Data Types. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 4(1), 32–53 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liskov, B., Ladin, R.: Highly Available Services in Distributed Systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 29–39 (August 1986)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Demers, A., Greene, D., Hauser, C., Irish, W., Larson, J., Shenker, S., Sturgis, H., Swinehart, D., Terry, D.: Epidemic Algorithms for Replicated Database Maintenance. In: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 1–12 (August 1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jajodia, S., Mutchler, D.: Dynamic Voting. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 227–238 (June 1987)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carey, M.J., Livny, M.: Distributed concurrency control performance: A study of algorithms, distribution, and replication. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 13–25 (August 1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: Reducing storage for quorum consensus algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 419–430 (August 1988)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    El Abbadi, A., Toueg, S.: Maintaining Availability in Partitioned Replicated Databases. ACM Transaction on Database Systems 14(2), 264–290 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: The Tree Quorum Protocol: An Efficient Approach for Managing Replicated Data. In: Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 243–254 (August 1990)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jajodia, S., Mutchler, D.: Dynamic Voting Algorithms for Maintaining the Consistency of a Replicated Database. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 15(2), 230–280 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: The Generalized Tree Quorum Protocol: An Efficient Approach for Managing Replicated Data. ACM Transaction on Database Systems 17(4), 689–717 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: Resilient Logical Structures for Efficient Management of Replicated Data. In: Proceedings of Eighteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 151–162 (August 1992)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gray, J., Helland, P., O’Neil, P., Shasha, D.: The Dangers of Replication. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 173–182 (June 1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A., Steinke, R.: Epidemic Algorithms in Replicated Databases. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 161–172 (May 1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stanoi, I., Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.: Using broadcast primitives in replicated databases. In: Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 148–155 (May 1998)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lakshman, A., Malik, P.: Cassandra: a decentralized structured storage system. Operating Systems Review 44(2), 35–40 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burrows, M.: The chubby lock service for loosely-coupled distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI 2006, pp. 335–350. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hunt, P., Konar, M., Junqueira, F.P., Reed, B.: Zookeeper: wait-free coordination for internet-scale systems. In: Proc. 2010 USENIX Conference, USENIXATC 2010, p. 11. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    DeCandia, G., Hastorun, D., Jampani, M., Kakulapati, G., Lakshman, A., Pilchin, A., Sivasubramanian, S., Vosshall, P., Vogels, W.: Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: Proc. 21st ACM Symp. Operating Systems Principles, pp. 205–220 (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    HBase (2011), http://hbase.apache.org (acc. July 18, 2011)
  43. 43.
    Calder, B., Wang, J., Ogus, A., Nilakantan, N., Skjolsvold, A., McKelvie, S., Xu, Y., Srivastav, S., Wu, J., Simitci, H., et al.: Windows azure storage: a highly available cloud storage service with strong consistency. In: Proc. Twenty-Third ACM Symp. Operating Systems Principles, pp. 143–157. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Curino, C., Jones, E.P.C., Popa, R.A., Malviya, N., Wu, E., Madden, S., Balakrishnan, H., Zeldovich, N.: Relational cloud: a database service for the cloud. In: CIDR, pp. 235–240 (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bernstein, P.A., Cseri, I., Dani, N., Ellis, N., Kalhan, A., Kakivaya, G., Lomet, D.B., Manne, R., Novik, L., Talius, T.: Adapting microsoft sql server for cloud computing. In: ICDE, pp. 1255–1263 (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Glendenning, L., Beschastnikh, I., Krishnamurthy, A., Anderson, T.: Scalable consistency in scatter. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2011, pp. 15–28. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sovran, Y., Power, R., Aguilera, M.K., Li, J.: Transactional storage for geo-replicated systems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2011, pp. 385–400. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lloyd, W., Freedman, M.J., Kaminsky, M., Andersen, D.G.: Don’t settle for eventual: scalable causal consistency for wide-area storage with COPS. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2011, pp. 401–416. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kraska, T., Pang, G., Franklin, M.J., Madden, S.: Mdcc: Multi-data center consistency. CoRR abs/1203.6049 (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fischer, M., Michael, A.: Sacrificing serializability to attain high availability of data in an unreliable network. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 70–75. ACM (1982)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wuu, G.T., Bernstein, A.J.: Efficient solutions to the replicated log and dictionary problems. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 1984, pp. 233–242. ACM, New York (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kaashoek, M.F., Tanenbaum, A.S.: Group Communication in the Amoeba Distributed Operating Systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 222–230 (May 1991)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Amir, Y., Dolev, D., Kramer, S., Malki, D.: Membership Algorithms for Multicast Communication Groups. In: Segall, A., Zaks, S. (eds.) WDAG 1992. LNCS, vol. 647, pp. 292–312. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Amir, Y., Moser, L.E., Melliar-Smith, P.M., Agarwal, D.A., Ciarfella, P.: The Totem Single-Ring Ordering and Membership Protocol. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 13(4), 311–342 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Neiger, G.: A New Look at Membership Services. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (1996)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Patterson, S., Elmore, A.J., Nawab, F., Agrawal, D., Abbadi, A.E.: Serializability, not serial: Concurrency control and availability in multi-datacenter datastores. PVLDB 5(11), 1459–1470 (2012)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Computer Systems 16(2), 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Commun. ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley (1987)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Adya, A., Liskov, B., O’Neil, P.E.: Generalized isolation level definitions. In: ICDE, pp. 67–78 (2000)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lin, Y., Kemme, B., Jiménez-Peris, R., Patiño Martínez, M., Armendáriz-Iñigo, J.E.: Snapshot isolation and integrity constraints in replicated databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 34(2), 11:1–11:49 (2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu, S., Kemme, B.: Postgres-r(si): Combining replica control with concurrency control based on snapshot isolation. In: ICDE, pp. 422–433 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options