Comparison of Database Replication Techniques Based on Total Order Broadcast

In this paper, we present a performance comparison of database replication techniques based on total order broadcast. While the performance of total order broadcast-based replication techniques has been studied in previous papers, this paper presents many new contributions. First, it compares with each other techniques that were presented and evaluated separately, usually by comparing them to a classical replication scheme like distributed locking. Second, the evaluation is done using a finer network model than previous studies. Third, the paper compares techniques that offer the same consistency criterion (one-copy serializability) in the same environment using the same settings. The paper shows that, while networking performance has little influence in a LAN setting, the cost of synchronizing replicas is quite high. Because of this, total order broadcast-based techniques are very promising as they minimize synchronization between replicas

Optimistic Parallel State-Machine Replication

State-machine replication, a fundamental approach to fault tolerance, requires replicas to execute commands deterministically, which usually results in sequential execution of commands. Sequential execution limits performance and underuses servers, which are increasingly parallel (i.e., multicore). To narrow the gap between state-machine replication requirements and the characteristics of modern servers, researchers have recently come up with alternative execution models. This paper surveys existing approaches to parallel state-machine replication and proposes a novel optimistic protocol that inherits the scalable features of previous techniques. Using a replicated B+-tree service, we demonstrate in the paper that our protocol outperforms the most efficient techniques by a factor of 2.4 times

Improving the benefits of multicast prioritization algorithms

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11227-014-1087-zPrioritized atomic multicast consists in delivering messages in total order while ensuring that the priorities of the messages are considered; i.e., messages with higher priorities are delivered first. That service can be used in multiple applications. An example is the usage of prioritization algorithms for reducing the transaction abort rates in applications that use a replicated database system. To this end, transaction messages get priorities according to their probability of violating the existing integrity constraints. This paper evaluates how that abort reduction may be improved varying the message sending rate and the bounds set on the length of the priority reordering queue being used by those multicast algorithms.This work has been partially supported by EU FEDER and Spanish MICINN under research Grants TIN2009-14460-C03-01 and TIN2010-17193.Miedes De Elías, EP.; Muñoz Escoí, FD. (2014). Improving the benefits of multicast prioritization algorithms. Journal of Supercomputing. 68(3):1280-1301. doi:10.1007/s11227-014-1087-zS12801301683Amir Y, Danilov C, Stanton JR (2000) A low latency, loss tolerant architecture and protocol for wide area group communication. In: International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), IEEE-CS, Washington, DC, USA, pp 327–336Chockler G, Keidar I, Vitenberg R (2001) Group communication specifications: a comprehensive study. ACM Comput Surv 33(4):427–469CiA (2001) About CAN in Automation (CiA). http://www.can-cia.org/index.php?id=aboutciaDéfago X, Schiper A, Urbán P (2004) Total order broadcast and multicast algorithms: taxonomy and survey. ACM Comput Surv 36(4):372–421Dolev D, Dwork C, Stockmeyer L (1987) On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. J ACM 34(1):77–97International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1993) Road vehicles—interchange of digital information—controller area network (CAN) for high-speed communication. Revised by ISO 11898-1:2003JBoss (2011) The Netty project 3.2 user guide. http://docs.jboss.org/netty/3.2/guide/html/Kaashoek MF, Tanenbaum AS (1996) An evaluation of the Amoeba group communication system. In: International conference on distributed computing system (ICDCS), IEEE-CS, Washington, DC, USA, pp 436–448Miedes E, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2008) Managing priorities in atomic multicast protocols. In: International conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES), Barcelona, Spain, pp 514–519Miedes E, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2010) Dynamic switching of total-order broadcast protocols. In: International conference on parallel and distributed processing techniques and applications (PDPTA), CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 457–463Miedes E, Muñoz-Escoí FD, Decker H (2008) Reducing transaction abort rates with prioritized atomic multicast protocols. In: International European conference on parallel and distributed computing (Euro-Par), Springer, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5168, pp 394–403Mocito J, Rodrigues L (2006) Run-time switching between total order algorithms. In: International European conference on parallel and distributed computing (Euro-Par), Springer, Dresden, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4128, pp 582–591Moser LE, Melliar-Smith PM, Agarwal DA, Budhia R, Lingley-Papadopoulos C (1996) Totem: a fault-tolerant multicast group communication system. Commun ACM 39(4):54–63Nakamura A, Takizawa M (1992) Priority-based total and semi-total ordering broadcast protocols. In: International conference on distributed computing systems (ICDCS), Yokohama, Japan, pp 178–185Nakamura A, Takizawa M (1993) Starvation-prevented priority based total ordering broadcast protocol on high-speed single channel network. In: 2nd International symposium on high performance distributed computing (HPDC), pp 281–288Rodrigues L, Veríssimo P, Casimiro A (1995) Priority-based totally ordered multicast. In: Workshop on algorithms and architectures for real-time control (AARTC), Ostend, BelgiumRütti O, Wojciechowski P, Schiper A (2006) Structural and algorithmic issues of dynamic protocol update. In: 20th International parallel and distributed processing symposium (IPDPS), IEEE-CS Press, Rhodes Island, GreeceTindell K, Clark J (1994) Holistic schedulability analysis for distributed hard real-time systems. Microprocess Microprogr 40(2–3):117–134Tully A, Shrivastava SK (1990) Preventing state divergence in replicated distributed programs. In: International symposium on reliable distributed systems (SRDS), Huntsville, Alabama, USA, pp 104–113Wiesmann M, Schiper A (2005) Comparison of database replication techniques based on total order broadcast. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17(4):551–56

Architecture for Mobile Heterogeneous Multi Domain Networks

Multi domain networks can be used in several scenarios including military, enterprize networks, emergency networks and many other cases. In such networks, each domain might be under its own administration. Therefore, the cooperation among domains is conditioned by individual domain policies regarding sharing information, such as network topology, connectivity, mobility, security, various service availability and so on. We propose a new architecture for Heterogeneous Multi Domain (HMD) networks, in which one the operations are subject to specific domain policies. We propose a hierarchical architecture, with an infrastructure of gateways at highest-control level that enables policy based interconnection, mobility and other services among domains. Gateways are responsible for translation among different communication protocols, including routing, signalling, and security. Besides the architecture, we discuss in more details the mobility and adaptive capacity of services in HMD. We discuss the HMD scalability and other advantages compared to existing architectural and mobility solutions. Furthermore, we analyze the dynamic availability at the control level of the hierarchy