skip to main content
10.1145/2391229.2391235acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How consistent is your cloud application?

Published:14 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Current cloud datastores usually trade consistency for performance and availability. However, it is often not clear how an application is affected when it runs under a low level of consistency. In fact, current application designers have basically no tools that would help them to get a feeling of which and how many inconsistencies actually occur for their particular application. In this paper, we propose a generalized approach for detecting consistency anomalies for arbitrary cloud applications accessing various types of cloud datastores in transactional or non-transactional contexts. We do not require any knowledge on the business logic of the studied application nor on its selected consistency guarantees. We experimentally verify the effectiveness of our approach by using the Google App Engine and Cassandra datastores.

References

  1. A. Adya, B. Liskov, and P. E. O'Neil. Generalized isolation level definitions. In ICDE, pages 67--78, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Akerkar. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., illustrated edition, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon Relational Database Service. A distributed relational database service. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Amazon SimpleDB. A highly available and flexible non-relational data store. http://aws.amazon.com/simpledb/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. AspectJ. The Java aspect-oriented extension. http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. C. Bennett, R. L. Grossman, D. Locke, J. Seidman, and S. Vejcik. Malstone: towards a benchmark for analytics on large data clouds. In SIGKDD, pages 145--152, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. H. Berenson, P. Bernstein, J. Gray, J. Melton, E. O'Neil, and P. O'Neil. A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels. In ACM SIGMOD Conf., 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Bernstein, P. Lewis, and S. Lu. Semantic conditions for correctness at different isolation levels. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 57--66. IEEE, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. E. A. Brewer. Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In PODC, page 7, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cassandra. A highly scalable, distributed and structured key-value store. http://cassandra.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Das, D. Agrawal, and A. E. Abbadi. Elastras: An elastic transactional data store in the cloud. In USENIX HotCloud, Boston, MA, 06/2009 2009. USENIX, USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Das, D. Agrawal, and A. E. Abbadi. G-store: a scalable data store for transactional multi key access in the cloud. In SoCC, pages 163--174, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. P. Eswaran, J. N. Gray, R. A. Lorie, and I. L. Traiger. The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. Commun. ACM, 19(11): 624--633, 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Fekete. Serialisability and snapshot isolation. In Proceedings of the Australian Database Conference, pages 201--210, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. Fekete, S. Goldrei, and J. P. Asenjo. Quantifying isolation anomalies. PVLDB, 2(1): 467--478, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Fekete, D. Liarokapis, E. J. O'Neil, P. E. O'Neil, and D. Shasha. Making snapshot isolation serializable. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 30(2): 492--528, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Gilbert and N. Lynch. Brewer's conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News, 33: 51--59, June 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Google App Engine. A platform as a service cloud computing platform. http://code.google.com/appengine/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Gray, P. Helland, P. O'Neil, and D. Shasha. The dangers of replication and a solution. SIGMOD Rec., 25: 173--182, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. JMeter. A Java based performance measuring tool. http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S. Jorwekar, A. Fekete, K. Ramamritham, and S. Sudarshan. Automating the detection of snapshot isolation anomalies. In VLDB, pages 1263--1274. VLDB, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Kossmann, T. Kraska, and S. Loesing. An evaluation of alternative architectures for transaction processing in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Management of data, SIGMOD '10, pages 579--590, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Kraska, M. Hentschel, G. Alonso, and D. Kossmann. Consistency rationing in the cloud: Pay only when it matters. PVLDB, 2(1): 253--264, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. J. Levandoski, D. B. Lomet, M. F. Mokbel, and K. Zhao. Deuteronomy: Transaction support for cloud data. In CIDR, pages 123--133, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. Li, X. Yang, S. Kandula, and M. Zhang. Cloudcmp: comparing public cloud providers. In Internet Measurement Conference, pages 1--14, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Microsoft SQL Azure. A Microsoft cloud-based service offering data-storage capabilities. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. W. Sobel, S. Subramanyam, A. Sucharitakul, J. Nguyen, H. Wong, A. Klepchukov, S. Patil, O. Fox, and D. Patterson. Cloudstone: Multi-platform, multi-language benchmark and measurement tools for web 2.0, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Thomson, T. Diamond, S.-C. Weng, K. Ren, P. Shao, and D. J. Abadi. Calvin: fast distributed transactions for partitioned database systems. In SIGMOD Conference, pages 1--12, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. H. T. Vo, C. Chen, and B. C. Ooi. Towards elastic transactional cloud storage with range query support. PVLDB, 3(1): 506--517, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. H. Wada, A. Fekete, L. Zhao, K. Lee, and A. Liu. Data consistency properties and the trade-offs in commercial cloud storage: the consumers' perspective. In CIDR, pages 134--143, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. WebFilings. A cloud-based company hosting applications for financial and executive teams. http://www.webfilings.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. K. Zellag and B. Kemme. Real-time quantification and classification of consistency anomalies in multi-tier architectures. In ICDE, pages 613--624, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. K. Zellag and B. Kemme. Consad: a real-time consistency anomalies detector. In SIGMOD Conference, pages 641--644, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. W. Zhou, G. Pierre, and C.-H. Chi. Cloudtps: Scalable transactions for web applications in the cloud. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 99(PrePrints), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How consistent is your cloud application?

          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
            SoCC '12: Proceedings of the Third ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
            October 2012
            325 pages
            ISBN:9781450317610
            DOI:10.1145/2391229

            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: 14 October 2012

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate169of722submissions,23%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader