The End of a Myth: Distributed Transactions Can Scale

The common wisdom is that distributed transactions do not scale. But what if distributed transactions could be made scalable using the next generation of networks and a redesign of distributed databases? There would be no need for developers anymore to worry about co-partitioning schemes to achieve decent performance. Application development would become easier as data placement would no longer determine how scalable an application is. Hardware provisioning would be simplified as the system administrator can expect a linear scale-out when adding more machines rather than some complex sub-linear function, which is highly application specific. In this paper, we present the design of our novel scalable database system NAM-DB and show that distributed transactions with the very common Snapshot Isolation guarantee can indeed scale using the next generation of RDMA-enabled network technology without any inherent bottlenecks. Our experiments with the TPC-C benchmark show that our system scales linearly to over 6.5 million new-order (14.5 million total) distributed transactions per second on 56 machines.Comment: 12 page

Parallel Deferred Update Replication

Deferred update replication (DUR) is an established approach to implementing highly efficient and available storage. While the throughput of read-only transactions scales linearly with the number of deployed replicas in DUR, the throughput of update transactions experiences limited improvements as replicas are added. This paper presents Parallel Deferred Update Replication (P-DUR), a variation of classical DUR that scales both read-only and update transactions with the number of cores available in a replica. In addition to introducing the new approach, we describe its full implementation and compare its performance to classical DUR and to Berkeley DB, a well-known standalone database

Staring into the abyss: An evaluation of concurrency control with one thousand cores

Computer architectures are moving towards an era dominated by many-core machines with dozens or even hundreds of cores on a single chip. This unprecedented level of on-chip parallelism introduces a new dimension to scalability that current database management systems (DBMSs) were not designed for. In particular, as the number of cores increases, the problem of concurrency control becomes extremely challenging. With hundreds of threads running in parallel, the complexity of coordinating competing accesses to data will likely diminish the gains from increased core counts. To better understand just how unprepared current DBMSs are for future CPU architectures, we performed an evaluation of concurrency control for on-line transaction processing (OLTP) workloads on many-core chips. We implemented seven concurrency control algorithms on a main-memory DBMS and using computer simulations scaled our system to 1024 cores. Our analysis shows that all algorithms fail to scale to this magnitude but for different reasons. In each case, we identify fundamental bottlenecks that are independent of the particular database implementation and argue that even state-of-the-art DBMSs suffer from these limitations. We conclude that rather than pursuing incremental solutions, many-core chips may require a completely redesigned DBMS architecture that is built from ground up and is tightly coupled with the hardware.Intel Corporation (Science and Technology Center for Big Data

Micro-architectural analysis of in-memory OLTP: Revisited

Micro-architectural behavior of traditional disk-based online transaction processing (OLTP) systems has been investigated extensively over the past couple of decades. Results show that traditional OLTP systems mostly under-utilize the available micro-architectural resources. In-memory OLTP systems, on the other hand, process all the data in main-memory and, therefore, can omit the buffer pool. Furthermore, they usually adopt more lightweight concurrency control mechanisms, cache-conscious data structures, and cleaner codebases since they are usually designed from scratch. Hence, we expect significant differences in micro-architectural behavior when running OLTP on platforms optimized for in-memory processing as opposed to disk-based database systems. In particular, we expect that in-memory systems exploit micro-architectural features such as instruction and data caches significantly better than disk-based systems. This paper sheds light on the micro-architectural behavior of in-memory database systems by analyzing and contrasting it to the behavior of disk-based systems when running OLTP workloads. The results show that, despite all the design changes, in-memory OLTP exhibits very similar micro-architectural behavior to disk-based OLTP: more than half of the execution time goes to memory stalls where instruction cache misses or the long-latency data misses from the last-level cache (LLC) are the dominant factors in the overall execution time. Even though ground-up designed in-memory systems can eliminate the instruction cache misses, the reduction in instruction stalls amplifies the impact of LLC data misses. As a result, only 30% of the CPU cycles are used to retire instructions, and 70% of the CPU cycles are wasted to stalls for both traditional disk-based and new generation in-memory OLTP

OLTP on Hardware Islands

Modern hardware is abundantly parallel and increasingly heterogeneous. The numerous processing cores have non-uniform access latencies to the main memory and to the processor caches, which causes variability in the communication costs. Unfortunately, database systems mostly assume that all processing cores are the same and that microarchitecture differences are not significant enough to appear in critical database execution paths. As we demonstrate in this paper, however, hardware heterogeneity does appear in the critical path and conventional database architectures achieve suboptimal and even worse, unpredictable performance. We perform a detailed performance analysis of OLTP deployments in servers with multiple cores per CPU (multicore) and multiple CPUs per server (multisocket). We compare different database deployment strategies where we vary the number and size of independent database instances running on a single server, from a single shared-everything instance to fine-grained shared-nothing configurations. We quantify the impact of non-uniform hardware on various deployments by (a) examining how efficiently each deployment uses the available hardware resources and (b) measuring the impact of distributed transactions and skewed requests on different workloads. Finally, we argue in favor of shared-nothing deployments that are topology- and workload-aware and take advantage of fast on-chip communication between islands of cores on the same socket.Comment: VLDB201