On Using Priority Inheritance-Based Distributed Static Two-Phase Locking Protocol

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 38)

Abstract

Two-phase locking with high priority (2PL-HP), a well-suited concurrency control protocol for distributed real-time database systems (DRTDBS) because of being free from priority inversion problem, is used for accessing data items to resolve conflicts among the concurrently executing transactions. However, it suffers from the problems of wastage of system resources responsible for degrading the system performance. In DRTDBS, our basic aim is to minimize the number of transactions missing their deadline. In this paper, static two-phase locking with priority inheritance (S2PL-PI) protocol has been proposed specifically to minimize the wasted system resources, i.e., CPU and data items by avoiding unnecessary abort of transactions by optimal use of priority inheritance mechanism. A DRTDBS is simulated for comparison of the performance of S2PL-PI protocol with previous other protocols, and results confirm the significant improvement in system performance.

Keywords

Concurrency control Two-phase locking 2PL-HP Priority inheritance Distributed real-time database 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial support provided by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India under grant no 1061461137 during this research work.

References

  1. 1.
    Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2008) Distributed real time database systems: background and literature review. Int J Distrib Parallel Databases 23(02):127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2001) Hard real-time distributed database systems: future directions. IIT Roorkee, India, pp 172–177Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pandey S, Shanker U (2016) Transaction execution in distributed real-time database systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on innovations in information embedded and communication systems, pp 96–100Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramamritham K (1993) Real-time databases. Distrib Parallel Databases 01(02):199–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faleiro JM, Abadi DJ (2015) FIT: a distributed database performance tradeoff. Data Eng 38(01):10–17Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu PS, Wu K-L, Lin K-J, Son SH (1994) On real-time databases: concurrency control and scheduling. Proc IEEE 82(01):140–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kao B, Garcia-Molina H (1993) An overview of real-time database systems. Real Time Comput 127:261–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faleiro JM, Abadi DJ (2014) Rethinking serializable multiversion concurrency control. VLDB 08(11):1190–1201Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harding R, Aken DV, Pavlo A, Stonebraker M (2016) An evaluation of distributed concurrency control. VLDB 10(05):553–564Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lam KY (1994) Concurrency control in distributed real time database systems. Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lam K-Y, Hung S-L, Son SH (1997) On using real-time static locking protocols for distributed real-time databases. Real-Time Syst 13(02):141–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abbott RK, Molina HG (1992) Scheduling real-time transactions: a performance evaluation. ACM Trans. Database Syst 17(03):513–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haritsa JR, Carey MJ, Livny M (1992) Data access scheduling in firm real-time database systems. Real-Time Syst 04(03):203–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pandey S, Shanker U (2018) A one phase priority inheritance commit protocol. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on distributed computing and information technology (ICDCIT), Bhubaneshwar, India, 11–13 Jan 2018 (Accepted)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang J, Stankovic JA, Towsley D (1991) On using priority inheritance in real-time databases. In: Real-time systems symposium, pp 210–221Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang J, Stankovic JA, Ramamritham K, Towsley D, Purimetla B (1992) Priority inheritance in soft real-time databases. Real-Time Systems, vol 04, no 03, pp 243–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2006) SWIFT—a new real time commit protocol. Distrib Parallel Databases 20(01):29–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2005) Priority assignment heuristic to cohorts executing in parallel. In: 9th international conference on world scientific and engineering academy and society (WSEAS)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee VCS, Lam KW, Hung SL (2002) Concurrency control for mixed transactions in real-time databases. IEEE Trans Comput 51(07):821–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ulusoy O (1995) A study of two transaction-processing architectures for distributed real-time data base systems. J Syst Softw 31(02):97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qin B, Liu Y (2003) High performance distributed real-time commit protocol. J Syst Softw 68(02):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringMMM University of TechnologyGorakhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations