Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Priority Inheritance Centered Locking Protocol for DRTDBS

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In distributed real-time applications, the static 2 Phase Locking with High Priority (S2PL-HP) protocol may resolve data conflict(s) among transactions executing concurrently. S2PL-HP is virtuously free from the priority inversion that may arise due to executing–executing conflict—both the transactions in the execution phase. However, its performance may degrade because of other problems, i.e., cyclic restart and unnecessary abort, starvation of transactions of longer length, and system resource wastage. We propose a new Priority Inheritance (PRIN) centered locking protocol to resolve the above problems. PRIN checks the wastage of system resources by preventing cyclic restart and unnecessary abort using the priority inheritance approach. It is also free from deadlock and reduces the effects of lengthy transaction starvation. The system performance is measured using the transaction miss percentage metric. We developed the simulator to assess the performance of the proposed protocol; the results confirm that our system, PRIN, achieves 1.05 ×–1.23 × performance improvement over the state-of-the-art systems.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

My manuscript has no associated data as the experiment-specific data is generated randomly through simulation.

References

  1. Sadoghi, M., & Blanas, S. (2019). Transaction processing on modern hardware. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management, 14(2), 1–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2020). Causes, effects, and consequences of priority inversion in transaction processing. In Handling priority inversion in time-constrained distributed databases. IGI Global.

  3. 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).

  4. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2020). Transaction scheduling protocols for controlling priority inversion: A review. Computer Science Review, 35, 100215.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Kao, B., & Garcia-Molina, H. (1993). An overview of real-time database systems. Real Time Computing, 127, 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lam, K. Y. (1994). Concurrency control in distributed real time database systems. Ph.D. thesis.

  7. Haritsa, J. R., Carey, M. J., & Livny, M. (1992). Data access scheduling in firm real-time database systems. Real-Time Systems, 04(03), 203–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Abbott, R. K., & Molina, H. G. (1992). Scheduling real-time transactions: A performance evaluation. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 17(03), 513–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lam, K.-Y., Hung, S.-L., & Son, S. H. (1997). On using real-time static locking protocols for distributed real-time databases. Real-Time System, 13(02), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yu, P. S., Wu, K.-L., Lin, K.-J., & Son, S. H. (1994). On real-time databases: Concurrency control and scheduling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 82(01), 140–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramamritham, K. (1993). Real-time databases. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 01(02), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shanker, U., Misra, M., & Sarje, A. K. (2008). Distributed real time database systems: Background and literature review. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Databases, Springer Verlag, 23(02), 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang, J., Stankovic, J. A., & Towsley, D. (1991). On using priority inheritance in real-time databases. In Real-time systems symposium (pp. 210–221).

  14. Huang, J., Stankovic, J. A., Ramamritham, K., Towsley, D., & Purimetla, B. (1992). Priority inheritance in soft real-time databases. Real-Time Systems, 04(03), 243–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shanker, U., Misra, M., & Sarje, A. K. (2005). Priority assignment heuristic to cohorts executing in parallel. In Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on computers, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) (pp. 01–06).

  16. 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, January 11–13, 2018.

  17. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2020). RACE: A concurrency control protocol for time-constrained transactions. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 45, 10131–10146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abduljalil, E., Thabit, F., Can, O., Patil, P. R., & Thorat, S. B. (2022). A new secure 2PL real-time concurrency control algorithm (ES2PL). International Journal of Intelligent Networks, 3, 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ulusoy, O. (1995). A study of two transaction-processing architectures for distributed real-time data base systems. The Journal of Systems and Software, 31(02), 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Taina, J., & Son, S. H. (1999). Towards a general real-time database simulator software library. IFAC Proceedings, 32(01), 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ulusoy, Ö., & Belford, G. G. (1993). Real-time transaction scheduling in database systems. Information Systems, 18(08), 559–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee, V. C. S., Lam, K.-W., & Hung, S.-L. (2002). Concurrency control for mixed transactions in real-time databases. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 51(7), 821–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shanker, U., Misra, M., & Sarje, A. K. (2006). SWIFT—A new real time commit protocol. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 20(01), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stankovic, J., & Zhao, W. (1988). On real-time transactions. ACM Sigmod Record, 17(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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).

  26. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2018). CART: A real-time concurrency control protocol. In B. C. Desai, J. Hong, & R. McClatchey (Eds.), 22nd International database engineering & applications symposium (IDEAS 2018). New York: ACM.

  27. Shanker, U., Agarwal, N., Tiwari, S., Goel, P., & Srivastava, P. (2010). ACTIVE-a real time commit protocol. Wireless Sensor Network, 2(3), 254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shanker, U., Vidyareddi, B., & Shukla, A. (2012). PERDURABLE: A real time commit protocol. In Recent trends in information reuse and integration (pp. 1–17).

  29. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2017). IDRC: A distributed real-time commit protocol. Procedia Computer Science, 125, 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2019). EDRC: An early data lending based real-time commit protocol. In Encyclopedia of organizational knowledge, administration, and technologies (1st Edn).

  31. 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).

  32. Haritsa, J. R., Ramamritham, K., & Gupta, R. (2000). The PROMPT real-time commit protocol. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 11(02), 160–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shanker, U., Misra, M., & Sarje, A. (2001). Hard real time distributed database systems: Future directions. In Proceedings of all India seminar on recent trends in computer communication networks. Dept. of ECE, IIT Roorkee, India (pp. 172–177).

  34. Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2019). MDTF: A contention aware priority assignment policy for cohorts in DRTDBS. In D. R. M. Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of organizational knowledge, administration, and technologies (1st Edn.).

  35. Gupta, S., & Sadoghi, M. (2018). “EasyCommit: A non-blocking two-phase commit protocol. In International conference on extending database technology (EDBT) (pp. 157–168).

  36. Gupta, S., & Sadoghi, M. (2019). Efficient and non-blocking agreement protocols. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 38, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pandey, A. K., Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2019). LIFT—A new linear two-phase commit protocol. In Proceedings of 25th annual international conference on advanced computing and communications (ADCOM 2019) at IIIT Bangalore.

  38. Harding, R., Aken, D. V., Pavlo, A., & Stonebraker, M. (2016). An evaluation of distributed concurrency control. VLDB, 10(05), 553–564.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Singh, R. K., Pandey, S., & Shanker, U. (2019). A non-database operations aware priority ceiling protocol for hard real-time database systems. In The proceedings of 10th international conference on computing communication and networking technologies, IIT, Kanpur, India, July 6–8.

  40. Lam, K., Kuo, T., Tsang, W., & Law, G. (2000). Concurrency control in mobile distributed real-time database systems. Information Systems, 25(4), 261–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lei, X., Zhao, Y., Chen, S., & Yuan, X. (2009). Concurrency control in mobile distributed real-time database systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 69(10), 866–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Swaroop, V., Gupta, G. K., & Shanker, U. (2011). Issues in mobile distributed real time databases: Performance and review. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 3(4), 3504–3517.

  43. Xiong, M., Ramamritham, K., Haritsa, J. R., & Stankovic, J. A. (2002). MIRROR: A state-conscious concurrency control protocol for replicated real-time databases. Information systems, 27(04), 277–297.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Wei, Y., Aslinger, A., Son, S., & Stankovic, J. (2004). ORDER: A dynamic replication algorithm for periodic transactions in distributed real-time databases. In 10th international conference on real-time and embedded computing systems and applications (RTCS 2004), August.

  45. Srivastava, A., Shankar, U., & Tiwari, S. K. (2012). Transaction management in homogenous distributed real-time replicated database systems. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engeering, 2(6), 190–196.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ashraf, S. (2019). Culminate coverage for sensor network through bodacious-instance mechanism. i-Manager’s Journal on Wireless Communication Networks, 8(3), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ashraf, S., Alfandi, O., Ahmad, A., Khattak, A. M., Hayat, B., Kim, K. H., & Ullah, A. (2020). Bodacious-instance coverage mechanism for wireless sensor network. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2020, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ashraf, S., Ahmed, T., & Saleem, S. (2021). NRSM: Node redeployment shrewd mechanism for wireless sensor network. Iran Journal of Computer Science, 4, 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McConaghy, T., Marques, R., Müller, A., De Jonghe, D., McConaghy, T., McMullen, G., Henderson, R., Bellemare, S., & Granzotto, A. (2016). Bigchaindb: A scalable blockchain database. White Paper, BigChainDB.

  50. Peng, Y., Du, M., Li, F., Cheng, R., & Song, D. (2020). FalconDB: Blockchain-based collaborative database. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 637–652).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The financial assistance under the Institute of Eminence (IoE) seed grant by BHU, Varanasi, India, is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science – MMV, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

    Sarvesh Pandey

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, M.M.M. University of Technology, Gorakhpur, 273010, India

    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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandey, S., Shanker, U. A Priority Inheritance Centered Locking Protocol for DRTDBS. Wireless Pers Commun 130, 987–1004 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-023-10316-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-023-10316-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation