Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Strong Consistency Models for Replicated Data

  • Alan Fekete
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1536

Synonyms

Copy transparency; Strong memory consistency

Definition

If a distributed database system keeps several copies or replicas for a data item, at different sites, then a replica control protocol determines how the replicas are accessed. Some replica control protocols ensure that clients never become aware that the data are replicated. In other words, the system provides the transparent illusion of an unreplicated database. Such a system is described as offering a strong consistency model. 1-copy-serializability (q.v.) is the best-known strong consistency model.

Historical Background

Early work in the 1970s investigated a range of replica control mechanisms, usually with the intention of providing transparent serializability. In the early 1980s, Bernstein and colleagues formalized the concept of 1-copy-serialiability as a consistency model [1], with a careful proof technique [2] like that for single-site serializability. Herlihy [8] extended these ideas to replicating data types...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Attar R, Bernstein PA, Goodman N. Site initialization, recovery, and backup in a distributed database system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 1984;10(6):645–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein PA, Goodman N. Serializability theory for replicated databases. J Comput Syst Sci. 1985;31(3):355–74.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breitbart Y, Komondoor R, Rastogi R, Seshadri S, Silberschatz A. Update propagation protocols for replicated databases. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chundi P, Rosenkrantz DJ, Ravi SS. Deferred updates and data placement in distributed databases. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Data Engineering; 1996. p. 469–76.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daudjee K, Salem K. Lazy database replication with snapshot isolation. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2006. p. 715–26.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elnikety S, Zwaenepoel W, Pedone F. Database replication using generalized snapshot isolation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Reliable Distributed System; 2005. p. 73–84.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray J, Helland P, O’Neil PE, Shasha D. The dangers of replication and a solution. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1996. p. 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herlihy M. A quorum-consensus replication method for abstract data types. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 1986;4(1):32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin Y, Kemme B, Patiño-Martínez M, Jiménez-Peris R, Armendáriz-Iñigo J. Snapshot isolation and integrity constraints in replicated databases. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 2009;34(2):11.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plattner C, Alonso G. Ganymed: scalable replication for transactional web applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/USENIX International Middleware Conference; 2004. p. 155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Terry DB, Demers AJ, Petersen K, Spreitzer M, Theimer M, Welch BB. Session guarantees for weakly consistent replicated data. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems; 1994. p. 140–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Bettina Kemme
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceMcGill Univ.MontrealCanada