Advertisement

A highly fault-tolerant quorum consensus method for managing replicated data

  • Xuemin Lin
  • Maria E. Orlowska
Session 3B: Distributed/Logic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 959)

Abstract

The main objective of data replication is to provide high availability of data for processing transactions. Quorum consensus (QC) methods are frequently applied to managing replicated data. In this paper, we present a new QC method. The proposed QC approach has a low message overhead: 1) In the best case, each transaction operation process needs only to communicate with \(O\left( {\sqrt n \log ^{1 - \tfrac{1}{{2\log _{3^2 } }}} n} \right) \left( { \approx O\left( {\sqrt n \log ^{0.208} n} \right)} \right)\) remote sites (n is the number of sites storing the manipulating data item). 2) In the worst case, each transaction operation process may be forced to communicate with \(O\left( {\sqrt n \log ^{\tfrac{1}{{2\log _{3^2 } }}} n} \right) \left( { \approx O\left( {\sqrt n \log ^{0.792} n} \right)} \right)\) remote sites. Further, we can show that the proposed QC method is highly fault-tolerant. The proposed approach is also fully distributed, that is, each site in a distributed system bears equal responsibility.

Key words

concurrency control distributed computing fault tolerance quorum consensus method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilocs and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. B. Davidson, H. Garcia-Molina and D. Skeen, Consistency in Partioned Networks, ACM Computing Surveys, 17(3), 341–370, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Garcia-Molina and D. Barbara, How to Assign Votes in a Distributed Systems, J. ACM, 32(4), 841–860, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Kumar, Hierarchical Quorum Consensus: A New Algorithm for Managing Replicated Data, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 40(9), 996–1004, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Kumar and A. Segev, Cost and Availability Tradeoffs in Replicated Data Concurrency Control, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 18(1), 102–131, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    X. Lin and M. E. Orlowska, An Optimal Voting Schema for Minimizing the Overall Communication Cost in Replicated Data Management, to appear in Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    X. Lin and M. E. Orlowska, On High Resilience and Low Message Overhead in Replicated Data Management, Technical Report, Computer Science Department, The University of Western Australia, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Maekawa, A √N Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion in Decentralized Systems, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 3(2), 145–159, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Rangarajan, S. Setia and S. K. Tripathi, A Fault-tolerant Algorithm for Replicated Data Management, IEEE Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Data Engineering, 230–237, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuemin Lin
    • 1
  • Maria E. Orlowska
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Western AustraliaNedlandsAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations