Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A contention aware EQS priority assignment heuristic for cohorts in DRTDBS

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The equal slack (EQS) priority assignment method has shown promising results with distributed real-time systems. As a result, the EQS is considered the first choice for distributed real-time database systems (DRTDBS). However, the integration of EQS with the DRTDBS comes at cost of many issues—intensive data contention due to dynamic cohort priority assignment, global deadlock, and wastage of resources due to cyclic restart. To address the above problems, this paper proposes a contention aware equal slack (CA-EQS) priority assignment heuristic. The CA-EQS heuristic reduces the data contention by utilizing the size of the cohort dependency. After the execution of the first cohort, the information about its size of dependency will be piggybacked with the message that initiates the execution of immediately next cohort of a parent transaction at some other site. The reason for going with the piggybacking approach is that the dependency size of the currently executing cohort not only depends on the data items locked by it but also on the data items that are locked by the cohorts that have already completed their execution before it. This way, a true data contention level can be assessed without any extra overhead (message and time). The CA-EQS solves the problem of deadlock and cyclic restart. Results from the simulation tool validate up to 9% drop in transactions miss ratio and up to 16% reduction in a number of transactions’ rollbacks by the CA-EQS heuristic over EQS, EQF, number of locks (NL), and most dependent transactions first (MDTF).

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pandey S, Shanker U (2020) Transaction scheduling protocols for controlling priority inversion: a review. Comput Sci Rev 35:100215

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Pandey S, Shanker U (2016) Transaction execution in distributed real-time database systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovations in information Embedded and Communication Systems, pp 96–100

  3. Pandey S, Shanker U (2017) On using priority inheritance based distributed static two phase locking protocol. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Data and Information System (ICDIS), pp 179–188

  4. Bernstein P, Hadzilacos V, Goodman N (1987) Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pandey S, Shanker U (2018) Priority inversion in DRTDBS: challenges and resolutions. In: Proceedings of the ACM India Joint International Conference on Data Science and Management of Data (CoDS-COMAD ‘18), pp 305–309

  6. Lam K, Pang CL, Son S, Cao J (1999) Resolving executing-committing conflicts in distributed real-time database systems. Comput J 42(08):674–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lam KY (1994) Concurrency control in distributed real time database systems, PhD Thesis

  8. Abbott RK, Molina HG (1992) Scheduling real-time transactions: a performance evaluation. ACM Trans Database Syst 17(03):513–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haritsa JR, Carey MJ, Livny M (1992) Data access scheduling in firm real-time database systems. Real-Time Syst 04(03):203–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2008) Distributed real time database systems: background and literature review. Int J Distrib Parallel Databases 23(02):127–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee V, Lam K, Kao B (1999) Priority scheduling of transactions in distributed real-time databases. Real-Time Syst 16(1):31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J ACM (JACM) 20(1):46–61

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Pang H, Livny M, Carey MJ (1992) Transaction scheduling in multiclass real-time database systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS), pp 23–34

  14. Datta A, Mukherjee S, Konana P, Viguier I, Bajaj A (1996) Multiclass transaction scheduling and overload management in firm real-time database systems. Inf Syst 21(1):29–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kao B, Garcia-Molina H (1997) Deadline assignment in a distributed soft real-time system. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 8(12):1268–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stankovic J, Ramamritham K, Towsley D (1991) Scheduling in real-time transaction systems. In: Foundations of real-time computing: scheduling and resource management, pp 157–184

  17. Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2006) SWIFT—a new real time commit protocol. Distrib Parallel Databases 20(01):29–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee VCS, Lam KW, Hung SL (2002) Concurrency control for mixed transactions in real-time databases. IEEE Trans Comput 51(07):821–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ulusoy O (1995) A study of two transaction-processing architectures for distributed real-time data base systems. J Syst Softw 31(02):97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bestavros A, Lin K, Son S (2012) Real-time database systems: issues and applications, vol 396. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis RI, Cucu-Grosjean L, Bertogna M, Burns A (2016) A review of priority assignment in real-time systems. J Syst Architect 65:64–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Audsley NC (2001) On priority assignment in fixed priority scheduling. Inform Process Lett 79(1):39–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Audsley NC (1991) Optimal priority assignment and feasibility of static priority tasks with arbitrary start times. Technical Report YCS164, Real- Time Systems Research Group, Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK

  24. Begam R, Xia Q, Zhu D, Aydin H (2016) Preference-oriented fixed-priority scheduling for periodic real-time tasks. J Syst Architect 69:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhao Y, Zeng H (2018) The concept of unschedulability core for optimizing real-time systems with fixed-priority scheduling. IEEE Trans Comput 68(6):926–938

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhao Y, Zeng H (2019) The concept of maximal unschedulable deadline assignment for optimization in fixed-priority scheduled real-time systems. Real-Time Syst 55(3):667–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Davis R, Bertogna M, Bonifaci V (2016) On the compatibility of exact schedulability tests for global fixed priority pre-emptive scheduling with Audsley’s optimal priority assignment algorithm. Real-Time Syst 52:113–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chishiro H, Takeda A, Funaoka K, Yamasaki N (2010) Semi-fixed-priority scheduling: new priority assignment policy for practical imprecise computation. In: IEEE 16th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications

  29. Lee J, Chwa HS, Lee J, Shin I (2016) Thread-level priority assignment in global multiprocessor scheduling for DAG tasks. J Syst Softw 113:246–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. He Q, Guan N, Guo Z (2019) Intra-task priority assignment in real-time scheduling of dag tasks on multi-cores. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 30(10):2283–2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maxim D, Buffet O, Santinelli L, Cucu-Grosjean L, Davis RI (2011) Optimal priority assignment algorithms for probabilistic real-time systems. In: RTNS, pp 129–138

  32. Peng B, Fisher N, Chantem T (2016) MILP-based deadline assignment for end-to-end flows in distributed real-time systems. In: The 24th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems

  33. Haritsa JR, Ramamritham K, Gupta R (2000) The PROMPT real-time commit protocol. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 11(02):160–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Haritsa JR, Livny M, Carey MJ (1991) Earliest deadline scheduling for real-time database systems. In: Twelfth, Real-Time Systems Symposium, Proceedings. IEEE, pp 232–242

  35. Haritsa JR, Livny M, Carey MJ (1991) Earliest deadline scheduling for real-time database systems. Madison, WI

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee VC, Lam KY, Kao B, Lam KW, Hung SL (1996) Priority assignment for sub-transaction in distributed real-time databases. In: RTDB

  37. Lee VV, Lam KY, Hung SL (1995) Virtual deadline assignment in distributed real-time database systems. In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications. IEEE

  38. Pandey S, Shanker U (2018) IDRC: a distributed real-time commit protocol. Proc Comput Sci 125:290–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pandey S, Shanker U (2018) A one phase priority inheritance commit protocol. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Information Technology (ICDCIT) Bhubaneshwar, India

  40. Pandey S, Shanker U (2018) CART: a real-time concurrency control protocol. In: Desai BC, Hong J, McClatchey R (eds) 22nd International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS 2018). ACM, New York

  41. Pandey S, Shanker U (2020) Race: a concurrency control protocol for time–constrained transactions. Arab J Sci Eng 45(12):10131–10146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yu PS, Wu K-L, Lin K-J, Son SH (1994) On real-time databases: concurrency control and scheduling. Proc IEEE 82(01):140–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen HR, Chin YH (2003) An adaptive scheduler for distributed real-time database systems. Inf Sci 153:55–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Agrawal S, Shanker U, Singh A, Anand A (2010) SPEEDITY—a real time commit protocol. Int J Comput Appl 1(3):86–93

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shanker U, Vidyareddi B, Shukla A (2012) PERDURABLE: A Real Time Commit Protocol. In: Özyer T, Kianmehr K, Tan M. (eds) Recent Trends in Information Reuse and Integration. Springer, Vienna, pp 1–17

  46. Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK (2005) Priority assignment heuristic to cohorts executing in parallel. In: 9th International Conference on World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The CSIR, India is acknowledged for providing financial support [Grant No 1061461137].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science and Engineering Department, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur, India

    Sarvesh Pandey & Udai Shanker

Authors
  1. Sarvesh Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Udai Shanker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarvesh Pandey.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandey, S., Shanker, U. A contention aware EQS priority assignment heuristic for cohorts in DRTDBS. J Supercomput 77, 6629–6663 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03530-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03530-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation