Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Independent updates and incremental agreement in replicated databases

  • Published:
Distributed and Parallel Databases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Update propagation and transaction atomicity are major obstacles to the development of replicated databases. Many practical applications, such as automated teller machine networks, flight reservation, and part inventory control, do not require these properties. In this paper we present an approach for incrementally updating a distributed, replicated database without requiring multi-site atomic commit protocols. We prove that the mechanism is correct, as it asymptotically performs all the updates on all the copies. Our approach has two important characteristics: it is progressive, and non-blocking.Progressive means that the transaction's coordinator always commits, possibly together with a group of other sites. The update is later propagated asynchronously to the remaining sites.Non-blocking means that each site can take unilateral decisions at each step of the algorithm. Sites which cannot commit updates are brought to the same final state by means of areconciliation mechanism. This mechanism uses the history logs, which are stored locally at each site, to bring sites to agreement. It requires a small auxiliary data structure, called reception vector, to keep track of the time unto which the other sites are guaranteed to be up-to-date. Several optimizations to the basic mechanism are also discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Agrawal and A. El Abbadi, “The Tree Quorum Protocol: an Efficient Approach for Managing Replicated Data,” inProc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Brisbane, Aug. 1990, pp. 243–254.

  2. R. Alonso, D. Barbara. H. Garcia Molina, and S. Abad, “Quasi-Copies: Efficient Data Sharing for Information Retrieval Systems,” inAdvances in Database Technology-EDBT'88, J.W. Schmidt, S. Ceri, and M. Missikoff (Eds.), LNCS303, 1988.

  3. P.M.G. Apers and G. Wiederhold, “Transaction Classification to Survive a Network Partition,” Technical report STAN-CS-85-1053, Stanford University, Aug. 1984.

  4. D. Barbara and H. Garcia-Molina, “The Case for Controlled Inconsistency in Replicated Data,”Proc. of the Workshop on Management of Replicated Data, Houston, TX, Nov. 1990.

  5. D. Barbara and H. Garcia-Molina,The Demarcation Protocol: a Technique for Maintaining Arithmetic Constraints in Distributed Database Systems, in Advances in Database Technology-EDBT'92, LNCS580, 1992, pp. 373–397.

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

  7. P.A. Bernstein, M. Hsu, and B. Mann, “Implementing Recoverable Requests Using Queues,” inProc. ACM SIGMOD'90, Atlantic City, pp. 112–122.

  8. S. Ceri, M.A.W. Houtsma, A.M. Keller, and P. Samarati, “A Classification of Update Methods for Replicated Databases,” Technical Report STAN-CS-91-1932, Stanford University, October 1991.

  9. S. Ceri, M.A.W. Houtsma, A.M. Keller, and P. Samarati, “The case for independent updates,” inProc. 2nd Workshop on Replicated Data Management, Monterey, CA, Nov. 1992.

  10. S. Ceri, M.A.W. Houtsma, A.M. Keller, and P. Samarati, “Achieving Incremental Consistency among Autonomous Replicated Databases,” inProc. DS-5, “Semantic Interoperability,” Lorne, Australia, Nov. 1992.

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

  12. M. Colten, “The Sybase Approach to Replicated Data,” Oral Presentation, CS347 Course on Distributed Databases, Stanford University, March 1992.

  13. A.R. Downing, I.B. Greenberg, and J.M. Peh, “Oscar: an Architecture for Weak-Consistency Replication,” inProc. Parbase Conference, 1990.

  14. A. El Abbadi, D. Skeen, and F. Christian, “An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Protocol for Replicated Data Management,”Proc. 4th ACM SIGACTSIGMOD Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, Portland, OR, March 1985, pp. 215–228.

  15. C.A. Ellis and S.J. Gibbs, “Concurrency Control in Groupware Systems,”Proc. ACM SIGMOD'89, Portland, OR, May 1989, pp. 399–407.

  16. M.J. Fischer and A. Michael, “Sacrificing Serializability to Attain High Availability of Data in an Unreliable Network,”ACM SIGACTSIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1982, pp. 70–75.

  17. H. Garcia-Molina and K. Salem, “Sagas,”Proc. ACM SIGMOD'87, May 1987.

  18. D.K. Gifford, “Weighted Voting for Replicated Data,”Proc. 7th ACM-SIGOPS Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, Pacific Grove, CA, Dec. 1979, pp. 150–159.

  19. R.A. Golding, “Weak-Consistency Group Communication and Membership,” PhD Thesis, University of Santa Cruz, 1992.

  20. J.N. Gray and M. Anderton, “Distributed Computer Systems: Four Case Studies,”Proc. of the IEEE, Vol. 75, No. 5, May 1987.

  21. J.N. Gray and A. Reuter,Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan-Kaufmann, August 1992.

  22. A. Heddaya, M. Hsu, and W.E. Weihl, “Two Phase Gossip: Managing Distributed Event Histories,” inInformation Sciences, 49(1), 1989, pp. 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Hsu and A. Silberschatz, “Unilateral Commit: a New Paradigm for Reliable Distributed Transaction Processing,” inProc. 7th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, 1991, pp. 286–293.

  24. B. Kahler and O. Risnes, “Extending Logging for Database Snapshot Refresh,” inProc. 13th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Brighton, England, 1987, pp. 389–398.

  25. N. Krishnakumar and A.J. Bernstein, “Bounded Ignorance in Replicated Systems,” inProc. ACMPODS'91, Denver, CO, May 1991.

  26. A. Kumar and A. Segev, “Optimizing Voting-Type Algorithms for Replicated Data,” inAdvances in Database Technology-EDBT'88, J.W. Schmidt, S. Ceri, and M. Missikoff (Eds.), LNCS303, 1988, pp. 428–442.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Ladin, B. Liskov, and L. Shira, “Lazy Replication: Exploiting the Semantics of Distributed Services,”Proc. 1st Workshop on Replicated Data, Houston, TX, Nov. 1990, pp. 31–34.

  28. L. Lamport, “Time, Clocks, and Ordering of Events in a Distributed System,”CACM, Vol. 21, No. 7, July 1978.

  29. T. Mostardi and C. Siciliano, “Bitransactions, Relay Races, and their Applications to the Management of Replicated Data,” CRAI Internal Report, S. Stefano di Rende (CS), Italy, Nov. 1990.

  30. N. Natarajan and T.V. Laksman, “An Open Architecture Facilitating Semantics Based Transaction Management for Telecommunications Applications,” inProc. Int. Workshop on High-Performance Transaction Systems, Asilomar, Sep. 1991.

  31. D.S. Parker, et al., “Detection of Mutual Inconsistency in Distributed Systems,”IEEE -TSE, May 1983.

  32. C. Pu and A. Leff, “Epsilon-Serializability,” Technical Report No. CUCS-054-90, Columbia University, Jan. 1990.

  33. C. Pu and A. Leff, “Replica Control in Distributed Systems: an Asynchronous Approach,”Proc. ACM SIGMOD'91, Denver, CO, May 1991.

  34. K.V.S. Ramarao, “Transaction Atomicity in the Presence of Network Partition,” inProc. 4th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, Feb. 1988, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 512–519.

  35. A. Reuter and H. Wächter, “The Contract Model,”IEEE Database Engineering Bulletin Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1991.

  36. S.K. Sarin, C.W. Kaufman, and J.E. Somers, “Using History Information to Process Delayed Database Updates,”Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 1986, pp. 71–78.

  37. G.T.J. Wuu and A. Bernstein, “Efficient Solutions to the Replicated Log and Dictionary Problems,” inProc. 3rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1984.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informatica, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

    S. Ceri

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Twente, the Netherlands

    M. A. W. Houtsma

  3. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, USA

    A. M. Keller

  4. Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Informazione, Università di Milano, Milano, Italy

    P. Samarati

Authors
  1. S. Ceri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. W. Houtsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. M. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Samarati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Recommended by: Ahmed Elmagarmid

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ceri, S., Houtsma, M.A.W., Keller, A.M. et al. Independent updates and incremental agreement in replicated databases. Distrib Parallel Databases 3, 225–246 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01418058

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01418058

Keywords

Search

Navigation