View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EEC-681/781EEC-681/781Distributed Computing Distributed Computing
SystemsSystems
Lecture 12Lecture 12
Wenbing ZhaoWenbing [email protected]@ieee.org
Cleveland State UniversityCleveland State University
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
22
OutlineOutline
• Project report requirement
• Transaction processing concepts
• Distributed transaction and two phase commit
• Midterm #2– 12/6 Wednesday
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
33
Project Report RequirementProject Report Requirement
• Theory track– Introduction: define the problem and provide
motivation why we need a solution– Background: so that readers can understand the
techniques used to solve the problem– Current state of the art: what are the fundamental
techniques used to solve the problem. Ideally, provide a taxonomy of the techniques
– Open issues and future research directions: what are the hard problems remaining to be solved?
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
44
Project Report RequirementProject Report Requirement• Implementation track
– Introduction: define the problem domain and your implementation. Provide motivation on your system
– System model: assumption, restrictions, models– Design: component diagram, class diagram, pseudo
code, algorithms, header explanation– Implementation: what language, tools, libraries did you
use, a simple user guide on how to user your system– Performance and testing: throughput, latency, test
cases– Related work– Conclusion and future work
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
55
Project RequirementProject Requirement
• What you should NOT do– Take an application from Internet or your friend => F grade– False claim of working prototype, fabricate performance data and
test cases => F grade– Use other’s slides for presentation
• What you should do– If used any open source code, acknowledge it in both your
source code and your report, and provide reference– Extensively comment your code– Follow good naming and coding conventions– Use a source version control system, such as cvs, svn– If your code does not work, acknowledge it in your report
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
66
Project Report RequirementProject Report Requirement
• Report format: IEEE Transactions format. 4-10 pages– MS Word Template
• http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/pubs/transactions/TRANS-JOUR.DOC
– LaTex Template • http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/pubs/transactions/
IEEEtran.zip (main text)
• http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/pubs/transactions/IEEEtranBST.zip (bibliography)
• Report due: Dec 13 mid-night (electronic copy of the report & source code is required)
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
77
Why Transaction Processing?Why Transaction Processing?
• To achieve a form of fault tolerance– If something bad happens in a middle of a set of
operations, we abort and rollback to the original state
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
88
Transaction and ACID PropertiesTransaction and ACID Properties
• Atomicity: All operations either succeed, or all of them fail. When the transaction fails, the state of the object will remain unaffected by the transaction.
• Consistency: A transaction establishes a valid state transition. • Isolation: Concurrent transactions do not interfere with each other.
It appears to each transaction T that other transactions occur either before T, or after T, but never both.
• Durability: After the execution of a transaction, its effects are made permanent: changes to the state survive failures.
A transaction is a collection of operations on the state of an object (database, object composition, etc.) that satisfies the following properties:
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
99
Primitives for TransactionsPrimitives for Transactions
Primitive Description
BEGIN_TRANSACTION Make the start of a transaction
END_TRANSACTION Terminate the transaction and try to commit
ABORT_TRANSACTION Kill the transaction and restore the old values
READ Read data from a file, a table, or otherwise
WRITE Write data to a file, a table, or otherwise
BEGIN_TRANSACTION reserve WP -> JFK; reserve JFK -> Nairobi; reserve Nairobi -> Malindi;END_TRANSACTION
(a)
BEGIN_TRANSACTION reserve WP -> JFK; reserve JFK -> Nairobi; reserve Nairobi -> Malindi full =>ABORT_TRANSACTION (b)
Example transactions
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1010
Transaction ClassificationTransaction Classification
• Flat transactions: a sequence of operations that satisfies the ACID properties (the most common one)
• Nested transactions: A hierarchy of transactions that allows– Concurrent processing of subtransactions, and – Recovery per subtransaction
• Distributed transactions: A (flat) transaction that span multiple databases distributed across the network
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1111
Implementation of TransactionsImplementation of Transactions
• Private workspace
• Writeahead log
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1212
Private WorkspacePrivate Workspace
The file index and disk blocks for a three-block file
The situation after a transaction has modified
block 0 and appended block 3
After committing
A transaction gets its own copy of the (part of the) database. When things go wrong delete copy, otherwise commit the changes to the original
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1313
Writeahead LogWriteahead Log
x = 0;
y = 0;
BEGIN_TRANSACTION;
x = x + 1;
y = y + 2
x = y * y;
END_TRANSACTION;
(a)
Log
[x = 0 / 1]
(b)
Log
[x = 0 / 1]
[y = 0 / 2]
(c)
Log
[x = 0 / 1]
[y = 0 / 2]
[x = 1 / 4]
(d)
A transaction The log before & after each statement is executed
Use a writeahead log in which changes are recorded allowing one to roll back when things go wrong
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1414
Concurrency Control Concurrency Control
• Goal: Increase efficiency by allowing several transactions to execute at the same time
• Constraint: Effect should be the same as if the transactions were executed in some serial order
General organization of managers for handling
transactions
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1515
Concurrency Control Concurrency Control
General organization of managers for handling distributed transactions
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1616
SerializabilitySerializability
• Consider a collection E of transactions T1, … Tn• Goal is to conduct a serializable execution of E:
– Transactions in E are possibly concurrently executed according to some schedule S
– Schedule S is equivalent to some totally ordered execution of T1, … Tn
• Two operations Op(Ti, x) and Op(Tj, x) on the same data item x, and from a set of logs may conflict at a data manager:– read-write conflict (rw): One is a read operation while the other
is a write operation on x– write-write conflict (ww): Both are write operations on x
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1717
Basic Scheduling TheoremBasic Scheduling Theorem
• Concurrency control - process conflicting reads and writes in certain relative orders
• Read-write and write-write conflicts can be synchronized independently, as long as we stick to a total ordering of transactions that is consistent with both types of conflicts
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1818
Synchronization TechniquesSynchronization Techniques
• Two-phase locking: Before reading or writing a data item, a lock must be obtained. After a lock is released, the transaction is not allowed to acquire any more locks
• Timestamp ordering: Operations in a transaction are timestamped, and data managers are forced to handle operations in timestamp order
• Optimistic control: Don’t prevent things from going wrong, but correct the situation if conflicts actually did happen
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
1919
Two-phase LockingTwo-phase Locking
• There are only READ and WRITE operations within transactions
• Locks are granted and released only by scheduler
• Locking policy is to avoid conflicts between operations
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2020
Two-phase LockingTwo-phase Locking• Rule 1: When client submits Op(Ti,x), scheduler tests
whether it conflicts with an operation Op(Tj,x) from some other client. If no conflict then grant Op(Ti,x), otherwise delay execution of Op(Ti,x)– Conflicting operations are executed in the same order as that
locks are granted
• Rule 2: If Op(Ti,x) has been granted, do not release the lock until Op(Ti,x) has been executed by data manager– Guarantees LOCK => Op => RELEASE order
• Rule 3: If RELEASE(Ti,x) has taken place, no more locks for Ti may be granted– Combined with rule 1, guarantees that all pairs of conflicting
operations of two transactions are done in the same order
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2121
Two-Phase LockingTwo-Phase Locking
• Centralized 2PL: A single site handles all locks• Primary 2PL: Each data item is assigned a primary site to handle its locks. Data
is not necessarily replicated• Distributed 2PL: Assumes data can be replicated. Each primary is responsible
for handling locks for its data, which may reside at remote data managers
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2222
Two-phase Locking: ProblemsTwo-phase Locking: Problems• Problem 1: System can come into a deadlock. How?
– Practical solution: put a timeout on locks and abort transaction on expiration.
• Problem 2: When should the scheduler actually release a lock:– (1) when operation has been executed
– (2) when it knows that no more locks will be requested
• No good way of testing condition (2) unless transaction has been committed or aborted
• Moreover: Assume the following execution sequence takes place:RELEASE(Ti,x) => LOCK(Tj,x) => ABORT(Ti).
• Consequence: scheduler will have to abort Tj as well (cascaded aborts)
• Solution: Release all locks only at commit/abort time (strict two-phase locking)
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2323
Strict Two-Phase Locking Strict Two-Phase Locking
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2424
Two-Phase Commit – Achieving Atomicity Two-Phase Commit – Achieving Atomicity in Distributed Transactionsin Distributed Transactions
• Model: The client who initiated the computation acts as a coordinator; processes required to commit are the participants
• Phase 1a: Coordinator sends VOTE_REQUEST to participants (also called a pre-write)
• Phase 1b: When participant receives VOTE_REQUEST it returns either YES or NO to coordinator. If it sends NO, it aborts its local computation
• Phase 2a: Coordinator collects all votes; if all are YES, it sends COMMIT to all participants, otherwise it sends ABORT
• Phase 2b: Each participant waits for COMMIT or ABORT and handles accordingly
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2525
Two-Phase Commit Two-Phase Commit
The finite state machine for the
coordinator in 2PC
The finite state machine for a
participant
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2626
2PC – Failing Participant2PC – Failing Participant
• Initial state: No problem, as participant was unaware of the protocol
• Ready state: Participant is waiting to either commit or abort. After recovery, participant needs to know which state transition it should make => log the coordinator’s decision
• Abort state: Need to make entry into abort state idempotent
• Commit state: Also make entry into commit state idempotent
Consider participant crash in one of its states, and the subsequent recovery to that state:
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2727
2PC – Failing Coordinator2PC – Failing Coordinator• If it fails, the final decision is not available until the
coordinator recovers• Alternative: Let a participant P in the ready state
timeout when it hasn’t received the coordinator’s decision– P tries to find out what other participants know
• Question: Can P not succeed in getting the required information?
Fall Semester 2006Fall Semester 2006 EEC-681: Distributed Computing SystemsEEC-681: Distributed Computing Systems Wenbing ZhaoWenbing Zhao
2828
2PC – Failing Coordinator2PC – Failing Coordinator• Question: Can P not succeed in getting the required
information? • Observation: Essence of the problem is that a
recovering participant cannot make a local decision: it is dependent on other (possibly failed) processes– There might exist one participant that has received a COMMIT
decision from the coordinator and subsequently failed (more or less concurrently failed with the coordinator)
– The rest of participants cannot unilaterally decide to abort the transaction