Support for speculative update propagation and mobility in Deno

This paper presents the replication framework of Deno, an object replication system specifically designed for mobile and weakly-connected environments. Deno uses weighted voting for availability and pair-wise, epidemic information flow for flexibility. This combination allows the protocols to operate with less than full connectivity, to easily adapt to changes in group membership, and to make few assumptions about the underlying network topology. Deno has been implemented and runs on top of Linux and Win32 platforms. We use the Deno prototype to characterize the performance of two versions of Deno's protocol. The first version enables globally serializable execution of update transactions. The second supports a weaker consistency level that still guarantees transactionally-consistent access to replicated data. We demonstrate that the incremental cost of providing global serializability is low, and that speculative dissemination of updates can significantly improve commit performance.

[1]  Ugur Çetintemel,et al.  Light-weight currency management mechanisms in Deno , 2000, Proceedings Tenth International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering. RIDE 2000.

[2]  Divyakant Agrawal,et al.  Epidemic Algorithms for Replicated Databases , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[3]  Irene Greif,et al.  Replicated document management in a group communication system , 1988, CSCW '88.

[4]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance , 1988, OPSR.

[5]  Marvin Theimer,et al.  The Case for Non-transparent Replication: Examples from Bayou , 1998, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[6]  Avishai Wool,et al.  Quorum Systems in Replicated Databases: Science or Fiction? , 1998, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[7]  Amr El Abbadi,et al.  Availability in partitioned replicated databases , 1985, PODS.

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

[9]  J. Holliday,et al.  Epidemic quorums for managing replicated data , 2000, Conference Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference (Cat. No.00CH37086).

[10]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Consistency in a partitioned network: a survey , 1985, CSUR.

[11]  Rajeev Rastogi,et al.  Update propagation protocols for replicated databates , 1999, SIGMOD '99.

[12]  Paul M. Bober,et al.  Multiversion Query Locking , 1992, VLDB.

[13]  Rafael Alonso,et al.  Database system issues in nomadic computing , 1993, SIGMOD Conference.

[14]  Michael Stonebraker,et al.  Concurrency Control and Consistency of Multiple Copies of Data in Distributed Ingres , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[15]  Avishai Wool,et al.  Replication, consistency, and practicality: are these mutually exclusive? , 1998, SIGMOD '98.

[16]  Abdelsalam Helal,et al.  Mobile computing and databases: anything new? , 1995, SGMD.

[17]  Doug Terry,et al.  Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance , 1988, OPSR.

[18]  H DunhamMargaret,et al.  Mobile computing and databases , 1995 .

[19]  Ugur Çetintemel,et al.  Consistency management in Deno , 2000, Mob. Networks Appl..

[20]  A. Prasad Sistla,et al.  Data replication for mobile computers , 1994, SIGMOD '94.

[21]  Marvin Theimer,et al.  Managing update conflicts in Bayou, a weakly connected replicated storage system , 1995, SOSP.

[22]  Divyakant Agrawal,et al.  An efficient and fault-tolerant solution for distributed mutual exclusion , 1991, TOCS.

[23]  Tomasz Imielinski,et al.  Sleepers and workaholics: caching strategies in mobile environments , 1994, SIGMOD '94.

[24]  Bharat K. Bhargava,et al.  Maintaining consistency of data in mobile distributed environments , 1995, Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

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

[26]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Replicated Data Management in Mobile Environments: Anything New Under the Sun? , 1994, Applications in Parallel and Distributed Computing.

[27]  Peter Reiher,et al.  Perspectives on optimistically replicated, peer‐to‐peer filing , 1998 .

[28]  Peter J. Keleher,et al.  Decentralized replicated-object protocols , 1999, PODC '99.

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

[30]  Ashish Goel,et al.  Perspectives on optimistically replicated, peer‐to‐peer filing , 1998, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[31]  Dennis Shasha,et al.  The dangers of replication and a solution , 1996, SIGMOD '96.

[32]  Friedemann Mattern,et al.  Virtual Time and Global States of Distributed Systems , 2002 .

[33]  Liuba Shrira,et al.  Providing high availability using lazy replication , 1992, TOCS.

[34]  Divyakant Agrawal,et al.  Epidemic algorithms in replicated databases (extended abstract) , 1997, PODS.

[35]  Bharat K. Bhargava,et al.  Replication Techniques in Distributed Systems , 1996, Advances in Database Systems.

[36]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Read-only transactions in a distributed database , 1982, TODS.

[37]  Henry F. Korth,et al.  Replication and consistency: being lazy helps sometimes , 1997, PODS.

[38]  Narain H. Gehani,et al.  Scalable Update Propagation in Epidemic Replicated Databases , 1996, EDBT.

[39]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.