Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SP-LIFT: A Serial Parallel Linear and Fast-Paced Recovery-Centered Transaction Commit Protocol

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Linear two-phase commit (L-2PC) protocol is used in the commit processing of distributed transactions via the transaction managers of the various nodes when transaction runs serially. However, it suffers from the poor recovery process and some other associated problems also. In past, almost no effort has been done to overcome the aforementioned problems of L-2PC protocol. This paper is an attempt to propose a Serial Parallel Linear and Fast-paced recovery-centered Transaction (SP-LIFT) commit protocol by modifying the L-2PC. It gives autonomy to the participating cohorts by informing the cohort-in-doubt about the distributed transaction’s state instead of always looking for the coordinator’s stand. The SP-LIFT protocol is also different from LIFT protocol by allowing the second phase of commit processing to go in parallel while keeping the first phase of the commit processing the same as it was in the LIFT protocol. In this way, the SP-LIFT protocol allows the distributed transaction to complete its commit processing earlier as compared to the L-2PC and LIFT protocols. The performance results also confirm that the proposed protocol will be a better alternative.

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

References

  1. Al-Houmaily YJ. On interoperating incompatible atomic commit protocols in distributed databases. In: 1st IEEE international conference on computers, communications, and signal processing with special track on biomedical engineering, pp. 149–156. 2005.

  2. Al-Houmaily YJ. An intelligent adaptive participant’s presumption protocol for atomic commitment in distributed databases. Int J Intell Inf Database Syst. 2013;7(3):242–77.

    Google Scholar 

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

  4. Gupta S, Sadoghi M. Efficient and non-blocking agreement protocols. Distrib Parallel Databases. 2020;38(2):287–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Skeen D. Nonblocking commit protocols. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, pp. 133–142. 1981.

  6. Pandey S, Shanker U. 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. 2016.

  7. Gray J. The transaction concept: virtues and limitations. In: VLDB, vol. 81, pp. 144–154. 1981, September.

  8. Gray J, Reuter A. Transaction processing: concepts and techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bernstein PA, Hadzilacos V, Goodman N. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems, vol. 370. New York: Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Houmaily Y, Chrysanthis P. Two-phase commit in gigabit-networked distributed databases. In: International conference on parallel and distributed computing systems (PDCS). 1995.

  11. Lindsay B, Selinger P, Galtieri C, Gray J, Lorie R, Price T, Putzolu F, Wade B. Notes on distributed databases. Thomas J. Watson IBM Research Center. Research Division. 1979.

  12. Al-Houmaily Y, Chrysanthis P, Levitan S. An argument in favor of the presumed commit protocol. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 13th international conference on data engineering, pp. 255–265. 1997.

  13. Lampson B, Lomet D. Distributed transaction processing using two-phase commit protocol with presumed-commit without log force. Digital Equipment Corp, U.S. Patent 5,335,343. 1994.

  14. Abdallah M, Guerraoui R, Pucheral P. One-phase commit: does it make sense? In: IEEE proceedings of international conference on parallel and distributed systems (Cat. No. 98TB100250), pp. 182–192. 1998.

  15. Al-Houmaily Y, Chrysanthis P. 1-2PC: the one-two phase atomic commit protocol. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing, pp. 684–691. 2004.

  16. P. Reddy and M. Kitsuregawa, “Reducing the blocking in two-phase commit protocol employing backup sites. In: IEEE Proceedings of 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 406–415. 1998.

  17. Reddy P, Kitsuregawa M. Blocking reduction in two-phase commit protocol with multiple backup sites. In: International workshop on databases in networked information systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 200–215. 2000.

  18. Reddy P, Kitsuregawa M. Reducing the blocking in two-phase commit with backup sites. Inf Process Lett. 2003;86(1):39–47.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Alkhatib G, Labban R. Transaction management in distributed database systems: the case of oracle’s two-phase commit. J Inf Syst Educ. 2002;13(2):95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gray J, Lamport L. Consensus on transaction commit. ACM Trans Database Syst (TODS). 2006;31(1):133–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pandey S, Shanker U. 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. 2018.

  22. Shanker U, Misra M, Sarje AK. Distributed real time database systems: background and literature review. Int J Distrib Parallel Databases. 2008;23(02):127–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bernstein P, Goodman N. Concurrency control in distributed database systems. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR). 1981;13(2):185–221.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Pandey AK, Pandey S, Shanker U. 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. 2019.

  25. Varakantham P, Gangwani S, Karlapalem K. On handling component and transaction failures in multi agent systems. ACM SIGecom Exchanges. 2001;3(1):32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research work was funded by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India [Grant No. 1061461137].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Sarvesh Pandey, Aman Kumar Pandey & Udai Shanker

Authors
  1. Sarvesh Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aman Kumar Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Udai Shanker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarvesh Pandey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

This article is part of the topical collection “Emerging Technologies for 5G and Beyond” guest edited by Aloknath De.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandey, S., Pandey, A.K. & Shanker, U. SP-LIFT: A Serial Parallel Linear and Fast-Paced Recovery-Centered Transaction Commit Protocol. SN COMPUT. SCI. 1, 186 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00193-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00193-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation