skip to main content
10.1145/2236584.2236585acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A comparison of the use of virtual versus physical snapshots for supporting update-intensive workloads

Published:21 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Deployments of networked sensors fuel online applications that feed on real-time sensor data. This scenario calls for techniques that support the management of workloads that contain queries as well as very frequent updates. This paper compares two well-chosen approaches to exploiting the parallelism offered by modern processors for supporting such workloads. A general approach to avoiding contention among parallel hardware threads and thus exploiting the parallelism available in processors is to maintain two copies, or snapshots, of the data: one for the relatively long-duration queries and one for the frequent and very localized updates. The snapshot that receives the updates is frequently made available to queries, so that queries see up-to-date data. The snapshots may be physical or virtual. Physical snapshots are created using the C library memcpy function. Virtual snapshots are created by the fork system function that creates a new process that initially has the same data snapshot as the process it was forked from. When the new process carries out updates, this triggers the actual memory copying in a copy-on-write manner at memory page granularity. This paper characterizes the circumstances under which each technique is preferable. The use of physical snapshots is surprisingly efficient.

References

  1. AMD. Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 15h Processors. 47414, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. T. W. Barr, A. L. Cox, and S. Rixner. Translation caching: skip, don't walk (the page table). In ISCA, pp. 48--59, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Cieslewicz, W. Mee, and K. A. Ross. Cache-conscious buffering for database operators with state. In DaMoN, pp. 43--51, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Cieslewicz and K. A. Ross. Adaptive aggregation on chip multiprocessors. In VLDB, pp. 339--350, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Cieslewicz and K. A. Ross. Data partitioning on chip multiprocessors. In DaMoN, pp. 25--34, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Cieslewicz, K. A. Ross, and I. Giannakakis. Parallel buffers for chip multiprocessors. In DaMoN, pp. 1--10, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Cieslewicz, K. A. Ross, K. Satsumi, and Y. Ye. Automatic contention detection and amelioration for data-intensive operations. In SIGMOD, pp. 483--494, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. Dittrich, L. Blunschi, and M. A. V. Salles. Indexing moving objects using short-lived throwaway indexes. In SSTD, pp. 189--207, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. U. Drepper. What every programmer should know about memory. Technical report, Red Hat, Inc., 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Gray, P. Sundaresan, S. Englert, K. Baclawski, and P. J. Weinberger. Quickly generating billion-record synthetic databases. In SIGMOD, pp. 243--252, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Hardavellas, I. Pandis, R. Johnson, N. Mancheril, A. Ailamaki, and B. Falsafi. Database Servers on Chip Multiprocessors: Limitations and Opportunities. In CIDR, pp. 79--87, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Intel. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual. 248966-025, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Kemper and T. Neumann. Hyper: A hybrid oltp&olap main memory database system based on virtual memory snapshots. In ICDE, pp. 195--206, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. H. Mühe, A. Kemper, and T. Neumann. How to efficiently snapshot transactional data: hardware or software controlled? In DaMoN, pp. 17--26, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. A. Ross. Optimizing read convoys in main-memory query processing. In DaMoN, pp. 27--33, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Solace Systems. Achieving Nanosecond Latency Between Applications with Shared Memory Messaging. Whitepaper, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sun Microsystems. OpenSPARC T2 Supplement to the UltraSPARC Architecture. 950-5556-02, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. Šidlauskas, K. A. Ross, C. S. Jensen, and S. Šaltenis. Thread-level parallel indexing of update intensive moving-object workloads. In SSTD, pp. 186--204, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Y. Ye, K. A. Ross, and N. Vesdapunt. Scalable aggregation on multicore processors. In DaMoN, pp. 1--9, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    DaMoN '12: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Data Management on New Hardware
    May 2012
    72 pages
    ISBN:9781450314459
    DOI:10.1145/2236584

    Copyright © 2012 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 21 May 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate80of102submissions,78%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader