An argument in favor of the presumed commit protocol

Al-Houmaily, Yousef J.; Chrysanthis, Panos K.; Levitan, Steven P.

doi:10.1109/icde.1997.581795

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Otherwise, the cohort selects PrC. This is because it is cheaper to abort a transaction using PrA compared to PrC, while it is cheaper to commit a transaction using PrC compared to PrA [7].…”

Section: Description Of Ap3mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This is due to the costs associated with its message complexity (i.e., the number of messages used for coordinating the actions of the different sites) and log complexity (i.e., the frequency at which information is stored onto the stable logs of the participating sites). For this reason, there is a continuous interest in developing more efficient ACPs and optimizations (e.g., [10,7,4,2,13,5,6]), especially in the context of modern electronic services and electronic commerce environments that are characterized by high volume of transactions. Most notable developments are one-phase commit (IPC) protocols [14,4,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On interoperating incompatible atomic commit protocols in distributed databases

Al-Houmaily¹

2005

2005 1st International Conference on Computers, Communications, &Amp; Signal Processing With Special Track on Biomedical Engine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an adaptive participant's presumption protocol (Ap3) that can be used to atomically commit Internet transactions. Ap3 interoperates a one-phase commit protocol, namely, implicit-yes vote, and two-phase commit protocols, namely, presumed abort and presumed commit, in a dynamic fashion. Thus, it offers the performance advantage of the combined protocols, whenever possible, while still providing the wide applicability of two-phase commit protocols. This is achieved in spite ofthe incompatibilities between atomic commit protocols that lead to the general practice ofadopting a single atomic commit protocol in any distributed database system.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Ap3mentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On interoperating incompatible atomic commit protocols in distributed databases

Al-Houmaily¹

2005

2005 1st International Conference on Computers, Communications, &Amp; Signal Processing With Special Track on Biomedical Engine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our approach is based on the same optimistic principle as [1]. However, the Adjourn state differs from [1] as the Adjourn state does not block resources while a transaction has sent the result of its read phase to the Initiator and waits for the vote command.…”

Section: Concurrency Controlmentioning

confidence: 98%

Blocking reduction for distributed transaction processing within MANETs

Obermeier

Böttcher

Hett

et al. 2009

Distrib Parallel Databases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atomic commit protocols for distributed transactions in mobile ad-hoc networks have to consider message delays and network failures. We consider ad-hoc network scenarios, in which participants hold embedded databases and offer services to other participants. Services that are composed of several other services can access and manipulate data of physically different databases. In such a scenario, distributed transaction processing can be used to guarantee atomicity and serializability throughout all databases. However, with problems like message loss, node failure, and network partitioning, mobile environments make it hard to get estimations on the duration of a simple message exchange.In this article, we focus on the problem of setting up reasonable time-outs when guaranteeing atomicity for transaction processing within mobile ad-hoc networks, and we show the effect of setting up "wrong" time-outs on the transaction throughput and blocking time. Our solution, which does not depend on time-outs, shows a better performance in unreliable networks and remarkably reduces the amount of blocking.

show abstract

“…Our approach is based on the same optimistic principle as [1], but differs as the Adjourn State does not block resources after the read phase's result has been sent.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A transaction Tv validates to true, if one of the following three conditions holds for each older transaction To: 1) To has completed its write phase before Tv has started.…”

Section: B Local Concurrency Control By Backward Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjourn State Concurrency Control Avoiding Time-Out Problems in Atomic Commit Protocols

Obermeier

Böttcher

Hett

et al. 2008

2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of atomic commit protocols in mobile adhoc networks involves difficulties in setting up reasonable timeouts for aborting a pending distributed transaction. This paper presents the non-blocking Adjourn State, a concurrency control modification which makes time-outs in an atomic commit protocol for aborting a transaction unnecessary. Further, it enhances concurrency among transactions performing conflicting accesses to resources used by completed distributed transactions waiting for the commit protocol to be initiated.

show abstract

An argument in favor of the presumed commit protocol

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

On interoperating incompatible atomic commit protocols in distributed databases

On interoperating incompatible atomic commit protocols in distributed databases

Blocking reduction for distributed transaction processing within MANETs

Adjourn State Concurrency Control Avoiding Time-Out Problems in Atomic Commit Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About