Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis of two-phase-commit protocols

  • Fault Tolerance
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
ICDT '90 (ICDT 1990)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 470))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We compare the performance of four variants of the two-phase-commit paradigm, in the absence of failures. They are tree-commit ([SW1]), the decentralized ([Sk]), the linear ([G]), and the central-site ([LS]) algorithms. The performance measures are communication cost and communication time. We find that the communication cost of tree-commit is equal to that of the linear and central-site algorithms, its communication time cannot be worse, but it can be twice as fast. The communication time of the decentralized algorithm is better than that of tree-commit, whereas tree-commit wins as far as communication cost is concerned. When comparing the communication-complexity of the two algorithms, namely the product of the communication cost and the communication time, tree-commit wins.

Extended abstract

This research was supported in part by DARPA research grant #F-29601-87-C-0074, and by the Center for Advanced Technology at Columbia University NYSSTF-CAT(89)-5 and NYSSTF CU01207901

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems Addison Wesley, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Ceri and G. Pelagatti, Distributed Database Principles and Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Dwork and D. Skeen, "The Inherent Cost of Nonblocking Commitment", Prod. 2nd ACM Symp. on PODC, pp. 1–11, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Dwork and D. Skeen, "Patterns of Communication in Consensus Protocols", Proc. 3rd ACM Symp. on PODC, pp. 143–153, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Even, Graph Algorithms, Computer Science Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Fischer, The Consensus Problem in Unreliable Distributed Systems (a brief survey), Technical Report YALEU/DCS-/RR-273, Yale University, June 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.N. Gray, "Notes on Database Operating Systems," Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, Springer-Verlag, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. Hadzilacos, "On the Relationship between the Atomic Commitment and Consensus Problems," Proc. of the Workshop on Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computing Springer Verlag, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  9. V. Hadzilacos, "A Knowledge Theoretic Analysis of Atomic Commitment Protocols," Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on PODS, pp. 129–134, 1987. A revised version has been submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Hadetniemi, S. Hadetniemi, and A. Liestman, "A Survey of Gossiping and Broadcasting in Communication Networks," Networks Vol. 18 pp. 319–349, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Itai, Unpublished result, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. Lamport, "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System," CACM, 21(7), pp. 558–565, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. Liskov, M. Herlihy, P. Johnson, G. Leavens, R. Scheifler, and W. Weihl, "Preliminary Argus Reference Manual", Programming Methodology Group Memo 39, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. Lampson and H. Sturgis, "Crash Recovery in a Distributed Database System," TR, Xerox PARC, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Mohan, B. Lindsay, and R. Obermack, "Transaction Management in the R* Distributed Database Management System," TODS, 11(4), pp. 378–396, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Mohan, B. Lindsay, "Efficient Commit Protocols for the Tree of Processes Model of Distributed Transactions" Proc. 2nd ACM Symp. on PODC, pp. 76–88, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K.V.S. Ramarao, "On the Complexity of Commit Protocols," Proc. 4th ACM Symp. on PODS, pp. 235–244, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Skeen, "Nonblocking Commit Protocols," Proc. ACM SIGMOD, pp. 133–142, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Spector, "Modular Architectures for Distributed and Database Systems," Proc 8th ACM Symp. on PODS, pp. 217–224, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Segall, O. Wolfson, "Transaction Commitment at Minimal Communication Cost", Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), San Diego CA, March 1987, pp. 112–118.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Segall, O. Wolfson, "Optimal Communication Topologies for Atomic Commitment" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Data Engineering (DE4), Los Angeles, CA, February 1988, pp. 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, 10027, New York, NY

    Ouri Wolfson

Authors
  1. Ouri Wolfson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Serge Abiteboul Paris C. Kanellakis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wolfson, O. (1990). A comparative analysis of two-phase-commit protocols. In: Abiteboul, S., Kanellakis, P.C. (eds) ICDT '90. ICDT 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53507-1_84

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53507-1_84

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53507-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46682-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation