research-article

An evaluation of distributed concurrency control

Authors:

Rachael Harding,

Michael StonebrakerAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Volume 10, Issue 5

Pages 553 - 564

https://doi.org/10.14778/3055540.3055548

Published: 01 January 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Increasing transaction volumes have led to a resurgence of interest in distributed transaction processing. In particular, partitioning data across several servers can improve throughput by allowing servers to process transactions in parallel. But executing transactions across servers limits the scalability and performance of these systems.

In this paper, we quantify the effects of distribution on concurrency control protocols in a distributed environment. We evaluate six classic and modern protocols in an in-memory distributed database evaluation framework called Deneva, providing an apples-to-apples comparison between each. Our results expose severe limitations of distributed transaction processing engines. Moreover, in our analysis, we identify several protocol-specific scalability bottlenecks. We conclude that to achieve truly scalable operation, distributed concurrency control solutions must seek a tighter coupling with either novel network hardware (in the local area) or applications (via data modeling and semantically-aware execution), or both.

References

[1]

VoltDB. http://voltdb.com.

[2]

A. Adya. Weak consistency: a generalized theory and optimistic implementations for distributed transactions. PhD thesis, MIT, 1999.

Digital Library

[3]

R. Agrawal, M. J. Carey, and M. Livny. Concurrency control performance modeling: alternatives and implications. TODS, 12(4):609--654, 1987.

Digital Library

[4]

P. Bailis, A. Davidson, A. Fekete, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Highly Available Transactions: Virtues and limitations. In VLDB, 2014.

Digital Library

[5]

P. Bailis et al. Feral Concurrency Control: An empirical investigation of modern application integrity. In SIGMOD, 2015.

Digital Library

[6]

P. Bailis, A. Fekete, M. J. Franklin, A. Ghodsi, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Coordination Avoidance in Database Systems. In VLDB, 2015.

Digital Library

[7]

M. Balakrishnan et al. Tango: Distributed data structures over a shared log. In SOSP, 2013.

Digital Library

[8]

V. Balegas, S. Duarte, C. Ferreira, R. Rodrigues, N. Preguiça, M. Najafzadeh, and M. Shapiro. Putting consistency back into eventual consistency. In EuroSys, 2015.

Digital Library

[9]

P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems, volume 370. Addison-Wesley, 1987.

Digital Library

[10]

P. A. Bernstein and S. Das. Rethinking eventual consistency. In SIGMOD, pages 923--928. ACM, 2013.

Digital Library

[11]

P. A. Bernstein and N. Goodman. Concurrency control in distributed database systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 13(2):185--221, June 1981.

Digital Library

[12]

P. A. Bernstein and N. Goodman. Multiversion Concurrency Control - Theory and Algorithms. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 8(4):465--483, Dec. 1983.

Digital Library

[13]

A. Bhide, F. Bancilhon, and D. Dewitt. An analysis of three transaction processing architectures. In VLDB, 1988.

Digital Library

[14]

A. Bhide and M. Stonebraker. A performance comparison of two architectures for fast transaction processing. In ICDE, 1988.

Digital Library

[15]

C. Binnig, D. Kossmann, T. Kraska, and S. Loesing. How is the weather tomorrow? towards a benchmark for the cloud. In DBTest, 2009.

Digital Library

[16]

M. J. Carey and M. Livny. Distributed concurrency control performance: A study of algorithms, distribution, and replication. In VLDB, pages 13--25, 1988.

Digital Library

[17]

F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, et al. Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data. In OSDI, 2006.

Digital Library

[18]

Y. Chen, S. Alspaugh, and R. Katz. Interactive analytical processing in big data systems: A cross-industry study of mapreduce workloads. In VLDB, 2012.

Digital Library

[19]

B. F. Cooper, A. Silberstein, E. Tam, R. Ramakrishnan, and R. Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb. SoCC, pages 143--154, 2010.

Digital Library

[20]

J. C. Corbett et al. Spanner: Google's globally-distributed database. In OSDI, 2012.

Digital Library

[21]

J. Cowling and B. Liskov. Granola: low-overhead distributed transaction coordination. In USENIX ATC, 2012.

Digital Library

[22]

C. Curino, E. Jones, Y. Zhang, and S. Madden. Schism: a workload-driven approach to database replication and partitioning. VLDB, 3(1--2):48--57, 2010.

Digital Library

[23]

S. Das, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. G-store: a scalable data store for transactional multi key access in the cloud. In SoCC, pages 163--174, 2010.

Digital Library

[24]

D. E. Difallah, A. Pavlo, C. Curino, and P. Cudre-Mauroux. OLTP-Bench: An extensible testbed for benchmarking relational databases. In VLDB, 2014.

Digital Library

[25]

B. Ding, L. Kot, A. Demers, and J. Gehrke. Centiman: elastic, high performance optimistic concurrency control by watermarking. In SoCC, 2015.

Digital Library

[26]

A. Dragojević, D. Narayanan, E. B. Nightingale, M. Renzelmann, A. Shamis, A. Badam, and M. Castro. No compromises: distributed transactions with consistency, availability, and performance. In SOSP, 2015.

Digital Library

[27]

R. Escriva, B. Wong, and E. G. Sirer. Warp: Multi-key transactions for keyvalue stores. United Networks, LLC, Tech. Rep, 5, 2013.

[28]

K. P. Eswaran et al. The notions of consistency and predicate locks in a database system. Communications of the ACM, 19(11):624--633, 1976.

Digital Library

[29]

A. Ghazal, T. Rabl, M. Hu, F. Raab, M. Poess, A. Crolotte, and H.-A. Jacobsen. Bigbench: towards an industry standard benchmark for big data analytics. In SIGMOD, pages 1197--1208, 2013.

Digital Library

[30]

J. Gray, R. Lorie, G. Putzolu, and I. Traiger. Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared data base. Technical report, IBM, 1976.

[31]

P. Helland. Life beyond distributed transactions: an apostate's opinion. In CIDR, pages 132--141, 2007.

[32]

J. Huang, J. A. Stankovic, K. Ramamritham, and D. F. Towsley. Experimental evaluation of real-time optimistic concurrency control schemes. In VLDB, 1991.

Digital Library

[33]

R. Kallman et al. H-store: a high-performance, distributed main memory transaction processing system. In VLDB, 2008.

Digital Library

[34]

D. Karger, E. Lehman, T. Leighton, R. Panigrahy, M. Levine, and D. Lewin. Consistent hashing and random trees: Distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the world wide web. In STOC, pages 654--663, 1997.

Digital Library

[35]

S. Kimball. Living without atomic clocks. https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/living-without-atomic-clocks/, February 2016.

[36]

R. Krebs, A. Wert, and S. Kounev. Multi-tenancy performance benchmark for web application platforms. In Web Engineering, pages 424--438. Springer, 2013.

Digital Library

[37]

H.-T. Kung and C. H. Papadimitriou. An optimality theory of concurrency control for databases. In SIGMOD, 1979.

Digital Library

[38]

H. T. Kung and J. T. Robinson. On Optimistic Methods for Concurrency Control. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 6(2):213--226, June 1981.

Digital Library

[39]

H. A. Mahmoud, V. Arora, F. Nawab, D. Agrawal, and A. El Abbadi. Maat: Effective and scalable coordination of distributed transactions in the cloud. In VLDB, 2014.

Digital Library

[40]

N. Malviya, A. Weisberg, S. Madden, and M. Stonebraker. Rethinking main memory oltp recovery. In ICDE, pages 604--615. IEEE, 2014.

[41]

S. Mu, Y. Cui, Y. Zhang, W. Lloyd, and J. Li. Extracting more concurrency from distributed transactions. In OSDI, 2014.

Digital Library

[42]

M. Nicola and M. Jarke. Performance modeling of distributed and replicated databases. TKDE, 12(4):645--672, 2000.

Digital Library

[43]

A. Pavlo et al. Skew-aware automatic database partitioning in shared-nothing, parallel oltp systems. In SIGMOD, pages 61--72, 2012.

Digital Library

[44]

T. Rabl, S. Gómez-Villamor, M. Sadoghi, V. Muntés-Mulero, H.-A. Jacobsen, and S. Mankovskii. Solving big data challenges for enterprise application performance management. In VLDB, 2012.

Digital Library

[45]

K. Ren, A. Thomson, and D. J. Abadi. An Evaluation of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Deterministic Database Systems. Proc. VLDB Endow., 7(10):821--832, June 2014.

Digital Library

[46]

S. Roy, L. Kot, G. Bender, B. Ding, H. Hojjat, C. Koch, N. Foster, and J. Gehrke. The homeostasis protocol: Avoiding transaction coordination through program analysis. In SIGMOD, 2015.

Digital Library

[47]

J. Shute et al. F1: A distributed SQL database that scales. In VLDB, 2013.

Digital Library

[48]

K. Sivaramakrishnan, G. Kaki, and S. Jagannathan. Declarative programming over eventually consistent data stores. In PLDI, 2015.

Digital Library

[49]

M. Stonebraker. The case for shared nothing. IEEE Database Eng. Bull., 9, 1986.

[50]

M. Stonebraker, S. Madden, D. J. Abadi, S. Harizopoulos, N. Hachem, and P. Helland. The end of an architectural era: (it's time for a complete rewrite). VLDB, pages 1150--1160, 2007.

Digital Library

[51]

M. Sustrik. nanomsg. http://nanomsg.org.

[52]

M. Tamer Özsu and P. Valduriez. Principles of distributed database systems. Springer, 2011.

Digital Library

[53]

A. Thomson and D. J. Abadi. The case for determinism in database systems. Proc. VLDB Endow., 3:70--80, September 2010.

Digital Library

[54]

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, 2012.

Digital Library

[55]

Transaction Processing Performance Council. TPC Benchmark C (Revision 5.11), February 2010.

[56]

A. Turner, A. Fox, J. Payne, and H. S. Kim. C-mart: Benchmarking the cloud. IEEE TPDS, 24(6):1256--1266, 2013.

Digital Library

[57]

L. Wang, J. Zhan, C. Luo, Y. Zhu, Q. Yang, Y. He, W. Gao, Z. Jia, Y. Shi, S. Zhang, et al. BigDataBench: A big data benchmark suite from internet services. In HPCA, pages 488--499. IEEE, 2014.

[58]

X. Wei, J. Shi, Y. Chen, R. Chen, and H. Chen. Fast in-memory transaction processing using RDMA and HTM. In SOSP, 2015.

Digital Library

[59]

M. Welsh, D. Culler, and E. Brewer. Seda: an architecture for well-conditioned, scalable internet services. In SOSP, pages 230--243, 2001.

Digital Library

[60]

X. Yu, G. Bezerra, A. Pavlo, S. Devadas, and M. Stonebraker. Staring into the Abyss: An Evaluation of Concurrency Control with One Thousand Cores. In VLDB, 2014.

Digital Library

[61]

I. Zhang, N. K. Sharma, A. Szekeres, A. Krishnamurthy, and D. R. Ports. Building consistent transactions with inconsistent replication. In SOSP, 2015.

Digital Library

[62]

Y. Zhang et al. Transaction chains: achieving serializability with low latency in geo-distributed storage systems. In SOSP, 2013.

Digital Library

Cited By

Zhao HLi JLu WZhang QYang WZhong JZhang MLi HDu XPan A(2024)RCBench: an RDMA-enabled transaction framework for analyzing concurrency control algorithmsThe VLDB Journal — The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases10.1007/s00778-023-00821-033:2(543-567)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00778-023-00821-0
Depoutovitch AChen CLarson PNg JLin SXiong GLee PBoctor ERen SWu LZhang YSun C(2023)Taurus MM: Bringing Multi-Master to the CloudProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3611540.361154216:12(3488-3500)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3611540.3611542
Zhang QLi JZhao HXu QLu WXiao JHan FYang CDu X(2023)Efficient Distributed Transaction Processing in Heterogeneous NetworksProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3583140.358315316:6(1372-1385)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3583140.3583153
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An evaluation of distributed concurrency control
1. General and reference
  1. Cross-computing tools and techniques
    1. Performance
2. Information systems
  1. Data management systems
    1. Database management system engines
      1. Parallel and distributed DBMSs

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Extracting more concurrency from distributed transactions
OSDI'14: Proceedings of the 11th USENIX conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation

Distributed storage systems run transactions across machines to ensure serializability. Traditional protocols for distributed transactions are based on two-phase locking (2PL) or optimistic concurrency control (OCC). 2PL serializes transactions as soon ...
Distributed Concurrency Control Based on Limited Wait-Depth

The performance of high-volume transaction processing systems for business applications is determined by the degree of contention for hardware resources as well as for data. Hardware resource requirements may be met cost-effectively with a data-...
Distributed optimistic concurrency control with reduced rollback

Concurrency control algorithms have traditionally been based on locking and timestamp ordering mechanisms. Recently optimistic schemes have been proposed. In this paper a distributed, multi-version, optimistic concurrency control scheme is described ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment Volume 10, Issue 5

January 2017

168 pages

ISSN:2150-8097

Editor:
Divesh Srivastava
AT&T Labs

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

VLDB Endowment

Publication History

Published: 01 January 2017

Published in PVLDB Volume 10, Issue 5

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

40
Total Citations
View Citations
1,123
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)155
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhao HLi JLu WZhang QYang WZhong JZhang MLi HDu XPan A(2024)RCBench: an RDMA-enabled transaction framework for analyzing concurrency control algorithmsThe VLDB Journal — The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases10.1007/s00778-023-00821-033:2(543-567)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00778-023-00821-0
Depoutovitch AChen CLarson PNg JLin SXiong GLee PBoctor ERen SWu LZhang YSun C(2023)Taurus MM: Bringing Multi-Master to the CloudProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3611540.361154216:12(3488-3500)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3611540.3611542
Zhang QLi JZhao HXu QLu WXiao JHan FYang CDu X(2023)Efficient Distributed Transaction Processing in Heterogeneous NetworksProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3583140.358315316:6(1372-1385)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3583140.3583153
Zhao ZPan HChen GDu XLu WOoi B(2023)VeriTxn: Verifiable Transactions for Cloud-Native Databases with Storage DisaggregationProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36267641:4(1-27)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626764
Zhou WPeng QZhang ZZhang YRen YLi SFu GCui YLi QWu CHan SWang SLi GYu G(2023)GeoGauss: Strongly Consistent and Light-Coordinated OLTP for Geo-Replicated SQL DatabaseProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/35889161:1(1-27)Online publication date: 30-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3588916
Gupta SRahnama SPandey SCrooks NSadoghi MFedorova ANarayanan DDi Luna GQuerzoni L(2023)Dissecting BFT Consensus: In Trusted Components we Trust!Proceedings of the Eighteenth European Conference on Computer Systems10.1145/3552326.3587455(521-539)Online publication date: 8-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3552326.3587455
An SCao Y(2022)Making Cache Monotonic and ConsistentProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3574245.357427116:4(891-904)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3574245.3574271
Wang RWang JIdreos SÖzsu MAref W(2022)The case for distributed shared-memory databases with RDMA-enabled memory disaggregationProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3561261.356126316:1(15-22)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3561261.3561263
Zhou XYu XGraefe GStonebraker M(2022)LotusProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3551793.355184315:11(2939-2952)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3551793.3551843
Cheng AShi XKabcenell ALawande SQadeer HChan JTin HZhao RBailis PBalakrishnan MBronson NCrooks NStoica I(2022)TAOBenchProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3538598.353861615:9(1965-1977)Online publication date: 27-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14778/3538598.3538616
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents