A realistic evaluation of consistency algorithms for replicated files

Data are often replicated in distributed systems to protect them against site failures and network malfunctions. When this is the case, an access policy must be chosen to insure that a consistent view of the data is always presented. Voting protocols guarantee consistency of replicated data in the presence of any scenario involving non-Byzantine site failures and network partitions. While Static Majority Consensus Voting protocols use static quorums, Dynamic Voting protocols, like Dynamic Voting and Lexicographic Dynamic Voting, dynamically adjust quorums to changes in the status of the network of sites holding the copies. The availabilities of replicated data managed by these three protocols are compared using a simulation model with realistic parameters. Dynamic Voting is found to perform better than Majority Consensus Voting for all files having more than three copies while Lexicographic Dynamic Voting performs much better than the two other protocols for all eleven configurations under study.

[1]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Policies for Dynamic Vote Reassignment , 1986, ICDCS.

[2]  Darrell D. E. Long,et al.  Efficient dynamic voting algorithms , 1988, Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on Data Engineering.

[3]  Sushil Jajodia Managing replicated files in partitioned distributed database systems , 1987, 1987 IEEE Third International Conference on Data Engineering.

[4]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Dynamic voting algorithms for maintaining the consistency of a replicated database , 1990, TODS.

[5]  Richard D. Schlichting,et al.  Fail-stop processors: an approach to designing fault-tolerant computing systems , 1983, TOCS.

[6]  G SargentRobert Statistical analysis of simulation output data , 1977 .

[7]  Kishor S. Trivedi,et al.  Queueing Analysis of Fault-Tolerant Computer Systems , 1987, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  Stephen Fox,et al.  A recovery algorithm for a distributed database system , 1983, PODS.

[9]  Kishor S. Trivedi,et al.  Queueing Analysis of Fault-Tolerant Computer Systems , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[10]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Consistency and correctness of duplicate database systems , 1977, SOSP '77.

[11]  David K. Gifford,et al.  Weighted voting for replicated data , 1979, SOSP '79.

[12]  Averill M. Law,et al.  A Sequential Procedure for Determining the Length of a Steady-State Simulation , 1979, Oper. Res..

[13]  Walter A. Burkhard,et al.  Consistency and recovery control for replicated files , 1985, SOSP '85.

[14]  Darrell D. E. Long,et al.  Block-Level Consistency of Replicated Files , 1987, ICDCS.

[15]  Michael Stonebraker,et al.  A Formal Model of Crash Recovery in a Distributed System , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[16]  H ThomasRobert A Majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases , 1979 .

[17]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Dynamic voting , 1987, SIGMOD '87.

[18]  Darrell D. E. Long,et al.  On Improving the Availability of Replicated Files , 1987, SRDS.

[19]  Walter A. Burkhard,et al.  The Gemini replicated file system test-bed , 1987, 1987 IEEE Third International Conference on Data Engineering.

[20]  Robert H. Thomas,et al.  A Majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases , 1979, ACM Trans. Database Syst..

[21]  Carla Schlatter Ellis,et al.  The Roe File System , 1983, Symposium on Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems.

[22]  G. S. Fishman Principles of Discrete Event Simulation , 1978 .

[23]  Greg Thiel,et al.  LOCUS a network transparent, high reliability distributed system , 1981, SOSP.

[24]  Jehan-François Pâris,et al.  Voting with Witnesses: A Constistency Scheme for Replicated Files , 1986, ICDCS.