Rachael Harding
Michael Stonebraker
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Increasing transaction volumes have led to a resurgence of interest in distributed transaction processing. In particular, partitioning data across several servers can improve throughput by allowing servers to process transactions in parallel. But executing transactions across servers limits the scalability and performance of these systems.
In this paper, we quantify the effects of distribution on concurrency control protocols in a distributed environment. We evaluate six classic and modern protocols in an in-memory distributed database evaluation framework called Deneva, providing an apples-to-apples comparison between each. Our results expose severe limitations of distributed transaction processing engines. Moreover, in our analysis, we identify several protocol-specific scalability bottlenecks. We conclude that to achieve truly scalable operation, distributed concurrency control solutions must seek a tighter coupling with either novel network hardware (in the local area) or applications (via data modeling and semantically-aware execution), or both.
- VoltDB. http://voltdb.com.Google Scholar
- A. Adya. Weak consistency: a generalized theory and optimistic implementations for distributed transactions. PhD thesis, MIT, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Agrawal, M. J. Carey, and M. Livny. Concurrency control performance modeling: alternatives and implications. TODS, 12(4):609--654, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bailis, A. Davidson, A. Fekete, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Highly Available Transactions: Virtues and limitations. In VLDB, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bailis et al. Feral Concurrency Control: An empirical investigation of modern application integrity. In SIGMOD, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bailis, A. Fekete, M. J. Franklin, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Coordination Avoidance in Database Systems. In VLDB, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Balakrishnan et al. Tango: Distributed data structures over a shared log. In SOSP, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Balegas, S. Duarte, C. Ferreira, R. Rodrigues, N. Preguiça, M. Najafzadeh, and M. Shapiro. Putting consistency back into eventual consistency. In EuroSys, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems, volume 370. Addison-Wesley, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. A. Bernstein and S. Das. Rethinking eventual consistency. In SIGMOD, pages 923--928. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. A. Bernstein and N. Goodman. Concurrency control in distributed database systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 13(2):185--221, June 1981. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. A. Bernstein and N. Goodman. Multiversion Concurrency Control - Theory and Algorithms. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 8(4):465--483, Dec. 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Bhide, F. Bancilhon, and D. Dewitt. An analysis of three transaction processing architectures. In VLDB, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Bhide and M. Stonebraker. A performance comparison of two architectures for fast transaction processing. In ICDE, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Binnig, D. Kossmann, T. Kraska, and S. Loesing. How is the weather tomorrow? towards a benchmark for the cloud. In DBTest, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. J. Carey and M. Livny. Distributed concurrency control performance: A study of algorithms, distribution, and replication. In VLDB, pages 13--25, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, et al. Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data. In OSDI, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Chen, S. Alspaugh, and R. Katz. Interactive analytical processing in big data systems: A cross-industry study of mapreduce workloads. In VLDB, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. F. Cooper, A. Silberstein, E. Tam, R. Ramakrishnan, and R. Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb. SoCC, pages 143--154, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. C. Corbett et al. Spanner: Google's globally-distributed database. In OSDI, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Cowling and B. Liskov. Granola: low-overhead distributed transaction coordination. In USENIX ATC, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Curino, E. Jones, Y. Zhang, and S. Madden. Schism: a workload-driven approach to database replication and partitioning. VLDB, 3(1--2):48--57, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Das, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. G-store: a scalable data store for transactional multi key access in the cloud. In SoCC, pages 163--174, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. E. Difallah, A. Pavlo, C. Curino, and P. Cudre-Mauroux. OLTP-Bench: An extensible testbed for benchmarking relational databases. In VLDB, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Ding, L. Kot, A. Demers, and J. Gehrke. Centiman: elastic, high performance optimistic concurrency control by watermarking. In SoCC, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Dragojević, D. Narayanan, E. B. Nightingale, M. Renzelmann, A. Shamis, A. Badam, and M. Castro. No compromises: distributed transactions with consistency, availability, and performance. In SOSP, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Escriva, B. Wong, and E. G. Sirer. Warp: Multi-key transactions for keyvalue stores. United Networks, LLC, Tech. Rep, 5, 2013.Google Scholar
- K. P. Eswaran et al. The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. Communications of the ACM, 19(11):624--633, 1976. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Ghazal, T. Rabl, M. Hu, F. Raab, M. Poess, A. Crolotte, and H.-A. Jacobsen. Bigbench: towards an industry standard benchmark for big data analytics. In SIGMOD, pages 1197--1208, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gray, R. Lorie, G. Putzolu, and I. Traiger. Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared data base. Technical report, IBM, 1976.Google Scholar
- P. Helland. Life beyond distributed transactions: an apostate's opinion. In CIDR, pages 132--141, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. Huang, J. A. Stankovic, K. Ramamritham, and D. F. Towsley. Experimental evaluation of real-time optimistic concurrency control schemes. In VLDB, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Kallman et al. H-store: a high-performance, distributed main memory transaction processing system. In VLDB, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Karger, E. Lehman, T. Leighton, R. Panigrahy, M. Levine, and D. Lewin. Consistent hashing and random trees: Distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the world wide web. In STOC, pages 654--663, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Kimball. Living without atomic clocks. https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/living-without-atomic-clocks/, February 2016.Google Scholar
- R. Krebs, A. Wert, and S. Kounev. Multi-tenancy performance benchmark for web application platforms. In Web Engineering, pages 424--438. Springer, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H.-T. Kung and C. H. Papadimitriou. An optimality theory of concurrency control for databases. In SIGMOD, 1979. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. T. Kung and J. T. Robinson. On Optimistic Methods for Concurrency Control. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 6(2):213--226, June 1981. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. A. Mahmoud, V. Arora, F. Nawab, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. Maat: Effective and scalable coordination of distributed transactions in the cloud. In VLDB, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Malviya, A. Weisberg, S. Madden, and M. Stonebraker. Rethinking main memory oltp recovery. In ICDE, pages 604--615. IEEE, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Mu, Y. Cui, Y. Zhang, W. Lloyd, and J. Li. Extracting more concurrency from distributed transactions. In OSDI, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Nicola and M. Jarke. Performance modeling of distributed and replicated databases. TKDE, 12(4):645--672, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Pavlo et al. Skew-aware automatic database partitioning in shared-nothing, parallel oltp systems. In SIGMOD, pages 61--72, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Rabl, S. Gómez-Villamor, M. Sadoghi, V. Muntés-Mulero, H.-A. Jacobsen, and S. Mankovskii. Solving big data challenges for enterprise application performance management. In VLDB, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Ren, A. Thomson, and D. J. Abadi. An Evaluation of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Deterministic Database Systems. Proc. VLDB Endow., 7(10):821--832, June 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Roy, L. Kot, G. Bender, B. Ding, H. Hojjat, C. Koch, N. Foster, and J. Gehrke. The homeostasis protocol: Avoiding transaction coordination through program analysis. In SIGMOD, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Shute et al. F1: A distributed SQL database that scales. In VLDB, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Sivaramakrishnan, G. Kaki, and S. Jagannathan. Declarative programming over eventually consistent data stores. In PLDI, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Stonebraker. The case for shared nothing. IEEE Database Eng. Bull., 9, 1986.Google Scholar
- M. Stonebraker, S. Madden, D. J. Abadi, S. Harizopoulos, N. Hachem, and P. Helland. The end of an architectural era: (it's time for a complete rewrite). VLDB, pages 1150--1160, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Sustrik. nanomsg. http://nanomsg.org.Google Scholar
- M. Tamer Özsu and P. Valduriez. Principles of distributed database systems. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Thomson and D. J. Abadi. The case for determinism in database systems. Proc. VLDB Endow., 3:70--80, September 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Thomson, T. Diamond, S.-C. Weng, K. Ren, P. Shao, and D. J. Abadi. Calvin: Fast distributed transactions for partitioned database systems. In SIGMOD, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Transaction Processing Performance Council. TPC Benchmark C (Revision 5.11), February 2010.Google Scholar
- A. Turner, A. Fox, J. Payne, and H. S. Kim. C-mart: Benchmarking the cloud. IEEE TPDS, 24(6):1256--1266, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Wang, J. Zhan, C. Luo, Y. Zhu, Q. Yang, Y. He, W. Gao, Z. Jia, Y. Shi, S. Zhang, et al. BigDataBench: A big data benchmark suite from internet services. In HPCA, pages 488--499. IEEE, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- X. Wei, J. Shi, Y. Chen, R. Chen, and H. Chen. Fast in-memory transaction processing using RDMA and HTM. In SOSP, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Welsh, D. Culler, and E. Brewer. Seda: an architecture for well-conditioned, scalable internet services. In SOSP, pages 230--243, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- X. Yu, G. Bezerra, A. Pavlo, S. Devadas, and M. Stonebraker. Staring into the Abyss: An Evaluation of Concurrency Control with One Thousand Cores. In VLDB, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Zhang, N. K. Sharma, A. Szekeres, A. Krishnamurthy, and D. R. Ports. Building consistent transactions with inconsistent replication. In SOSP, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Zhang et al. Transaction chains: achieving serializability with low latency in geo-distributed storage systems. In SOSP, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- An evaluation of distributed concurrency control
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Extracting more concurrency from distributed transactions
OSDI'14: Proceedings of the 11th USENIX conference on Operating Systems Design and ImplementationDistributed storage systems run transactions across machines to ensure serializability. Traditional protocols for distributed transactions are based on two-phase locking (2PL) or optimistic concurrency control (OCC). 2PL serializes transactions as soon ...
Distributed Concurrency Control Based on Limited Wait-Depth
The performance of high-volume transaction processing systems for business applications is determined by the degree of contention for hardware resources as well as for data. Hardware resource requirements may be met cost-effectively with a data-...
Distributed optimistic concurrency control with reduced rollback
Concurrency control algorithms have traditionally been based on locking and timestamp ordering mechanisms. Recently optimistic schemes have been proposed. In this paper a distributed, multi-version, optimistic concurrency control scheme is described ...
Comments