Speculation in Parallel and Distributed Event Processing Systems

Event stream processing (ESP) applications enable the real-time processing of continuous flows of data. Algorithmic trading, network monitoring, and processing data from sensor networks are good examples of applications that traditionally rely upon ESP systems. In addition, technological advances are resulting in an increasing number of devices that are network enabled, producing information that can be automatically collected and processed. This increasing availability of on-line data motivates the development of new and more sophisticated applications that require low-latency processing of large volumes of data. ESP applications are composed of an acyclic graph of operators that is traversed by the data. Inside each operator, the events can be transformed, aggregated, enriched, or filtered out. Some of these operations depend only on the current input events, such operations are called stateless. Other operations, however, depend not only on the current event, but also on a state built during the processing of previous events. Such operations are, therefore, named stateful. As the number of ESP applications grows, there are increasingly strong requirements, which are often difficult to satisfy. In this dissertation, we address two challenges created by the use of stateful operations in a ESP application: (i) stateful operators can be bottlenecks because they are sensitive to the order of events and cannot be trivially parallelized by replication; and (ii), if failures are to be tolerated, the accumulated state of an stateful operator needs to be saved, saving this state traditionally imposes considerable performance costs. Our approach is to evaluate the use of speculation to address these two issues. For handling ordering and parallelization issues in a stateful operator, we propose a speculative approach that both reduces latency when the operator must wait for the correct ordering of the events and improves throughput when the operation in hand is parallelizable. In addition, our approach does not require that user understand concurrent programming or that he or she needs to consider out-of-order execution when writing the operations. For fault-tolerant applications, traditional approaches have imposed prohibitive performance costs due to pessimistic schemes. We extend such approaches, using speculation to mask the cost of fault tolerance.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Event stream processing systems ......................... 1 1.2 Running example ................................. 3 1.3 Challenges and contributions ........................... 4 1.4 Outline ...................................... 6 2 Background 7 2.1 Event stream processing ............................. 7 2.1.1 State in operators: Windows and synopses ............................ 8 2.1.2 Types of operators ............................ 12 2.1.3 Our prototype system........................... 13 2.2 Software transactional memory.......................... 18 2.2.1 Overview ................................. 18 2.2.2 Memory operations............................ 19 2.3 Fault tolerance in distributed systems ...................................... 23 2.3.1 Failure model and failure detection ...................................... 23 2.3.2 Recovery semantics............................ 24 2.3.3 Active and passive replication ...................... 24 2.4 Summary ..................................... 26 3 Extending event stream processing systems with speculation 27 3.1 Motivation..................................... 27 3.2 Goals ....................................... 28 3.3 Local versus distributed speculation ....................... 29 3.4 Models and assumptions ............................. 29 3.4.1 Operators................................. 30 3.4.2 Events................................... 30 3.4.3 Failures .................................. 31 4 Local speculation 33 4.1 Overview ..................................... 33 4.2 Requirements ................................... 35 4.2.1 Order ................................... 35 4.2.2 Aborts................................... 37 4.2.3 Optimism control ............................. 38 4.2.4 Notifications ............................... 39 4.3 Applications.................................... 40 4.3.1 Out-of-order processing ......................... 40 4.3.2 Optimistic parallelization......................... 42 4.4 Extensions..................................... 44 4.4.1 Avoiding unnecessary aborts ....................... 44 4.4.2 Making aborts unnecessary........................ 45 4.5 Evaluation..................................... 47 4.5.1 Overhead of speculation ......................... 47 4.5.2 Cost of misspeculation .......................... 50 4.5.3 Out-of-order and parallel processing micro benchmarks ........... 53 4.5.4 Behavior with example operators .................... 57 4.6 Summary ..................................... 60 5 Distributed speculation 63 5.1 Overview ..................................... 63 5.2 Requirements ................................... 64 5.2.1 Speculative events ............................ 64 5.2.2 Speculative accesses ........................... 69 5.2.3 Reliable ordered broadcast with optimistic delivery .................. 72 5.3 Applications .................................... 75 5.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ................................ 75 5.3.2 Active replication ............................. 80 5.4 Extensions ..................................... 82 5.4.1 Active replication and software bugs ..................................... 82 5.4.2 Enabling operators to output multiple events ........................ 87 5.5 Evaluation .................................... 87 5.5.1 Passive replication ............................ 88 5.5.2 Active replication ............................. 88 5.6 Summary ..................................... 93 6 Related work 95 6.1 Event stream processing engines ......................... 95 6.2 Parallelization and optimistic computing ................................ 97 6.2.1 Speculation ................................ 97 6.2.2 Optimistic parallelization ......................... 98 6.2.3 Parallelization in event processing .................................... 99 6.2.4 Speculation in event processing ..................... 99 6.3 Fault tolerance .................................. 100 6.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ............................... 100 6.3.2 Active replication ............................ 101 6.3.3 Fault tolerance in event stream processing systems ............. 103 7 Conclusions 105 7.1 Summary of contributions ............................ 105 7.2 Challenges and future work ............................ 106 Appendices Publications 107 Pseudocode for the consensus protocol 10

Speculation in Parallel and Distributed Event Processing Systems

Event stream processing (ESP) applications enable the real-time processing of continuous flows of data. Algorithmic trading, network monitoring, and processing data from sensor networks are good examples of applications that traditionally rely upon ESP systems. In addition, technological advances are resulting in an increasing number of devices that are network enabled, producing information that can be automatically collected and processed. This increasing availability of on-line data motivates the development of new and more sophisticated applications that require low-latency processing of large volumes of data. ESP applications are composed of an acyclic graph of operators that is traversed by the data. Inside each operator, the events can be transformed, aggregated, enriched, or filtered out. Some of these operations depend only on the current input events, such operations are called stateless. Other operations, however, depend not only on the current event, but also on a state built during the processing of previous events. Such operations are, therefore, named stateful. As the number of ESP applications grows, there are increasingly strong requirements, which are often difficult to satisfy. In this dissertation, we address two challenges created by the use of stateful operations in a ESP application: (i) stateful operators can be bottlenecks because they are sensitive to the order of events and cannot be trivially parallelized by replication; and (ii), if failures are to be tolerated, the accumulated state of an stateful operator needs to be saved, saving this state traditionally imposes considerable performance costs. Our approach is to evaluate the use of speculation to address these two issues. For handling ordering and parallelization issues in a stateful operator, we propose a speculative approach that both reduces latency when the operator must wait for the correct ordering of the events and improves throughput when the operation in hand is parallelizable. In addition, our approach does not require that user understand concurrent programming or that he or she needs to consider out-of-order execution when writing the operations. For fault-tolerant applications, traditional approaches have imposed prohibitive performance costs due to pessimistic schemes. We extend such approaches, using speculation to mask the cost of fault tolerance.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Event stream processing systems ......................... 1 1.2 Running example ................................. 3 1.3 Challenges and contributions ........................... 4 1.4 Outline ...................................... 6 2 Background 7 2.1 Event stream processing ............................. 7 2.1.1 State in operators: Windows and synopses ............................ 8 2.1.2 Types of operators ............................ 12 2.1.3 Our prototype system........................... 13 2.2 Software transactional memory.......................... 18 2.2.1 Overview ................................. 18 2.2.2 Memory operations............................ 19 2.3 Fault tolerance in distributed systems ...................................... 23 2.3.1 Failure model and failure detection ...................................... 23 2.3.2 Recovery semantics............................ 24 2.3.3 Active and passive replication ...................... 24 2.4 Summary ..................................... 26 3 Extending event stream processing systems with speculation 27 3.1 Motivation..................................... 27 3.2 Goals ....................................... 28 3.3 Local versus distributed speculation ....................... 29 3.4 Models and assumptions ............................. 29 3.4.1 Operators................................. 30 3.4.2 Events................................... 30 3.4.3 Failures .................................. 31 4 Local speculation 33 4.1 Overview ..................................... 33 4.2 Requirements ................................... 35 4.2.1 Order ................................... 35 4.2.2 Aborts................................... 37 4.2.3 Optimism control ............................. 38 4.2.4 Notifications ............................... 39 4.3 Applications.................................... 40 4.3.1 Out-of-order processing ......................... 40 4.3.2 Optimistic parallelization......................... 42 4.4 Extensions..................................... 44 4.4.1 Avoiding unnecessary aborts ....................... 44 4.4.2 Making aborts unnecessary........................ 45 4.5 Evaluation..................................... 47 4.5.1 Overhead of speculation ......................... 47 4.5.2 Cost of misspeculation .......................... 50 4.5.3 Out-of-order and parallel processing micro benchmarks ........... 53 4.5.4 Behavior with example operators .................... 57 4.6 Summary ..................................... 60 5 Distributed speculation 63 5.1 Overview ..................................... 63 5.2 Requirements ................................... 64 5.2.1 Speculative events ............................ 64 5.2.2 Speculative accesses ........................... 69 5.2.3 Reliable ordered broadcast with optimistic delivery .................. 72 5.3 Applications .................................... 75 5.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ................................ 75 5.3.2 Active replication ............................. 80 5.4 Extensions ..................................... 82 5.4.1 Active replication and software bugs ..................................... 82 5.4.2 Enabling operators to output multiple events ........................ 87 5.5 Evaluation .................................... 87 5.5.1 Passive replication ............................ 88 5.5.2 Active replication ............................. 88 5.6 Summary ..................................... 93 6 Related work 95 6.1 Event stream processing engines ......................... 95 6.2 Parallelization and optimistic computing ................................ 97 6.2.1 Speculation ................................ 97 6.2.2 Optimistic parallelization ......................... 98 6.2.3 Parallelization in event processing .................................... 99 6.2.4 Speculation in event processing ..................... 99 6.3 Fault tolerance .................................. 100 6.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ............................... 100 6.3.2 Active replication ............................ 101 6.3.3 Fault tolerance in event stream processing systems ............. 103 7 Conclusions 105 7.1 Summary of contributions ............................ 105 7.2 Challenges and future work ............................ 106 Appendices Publications 107 Pseudocode for the consensus protocol 10

The parallel event loop model and runtime: a parallel programming model and runtime system for safe event-based parallel programming

Recent trends in programming models for server-side development have shown an increasing popularity of event-based single- threaded programming models based on the combination of dynamic languages such as JavaScript and event-based runtime systems for asynchronous I/O management such as Node.JS. Reasons for the success of such models are the simplicity of the single-threaded event-based programming model as well as the growing popularity of the Cloud as a deployment platform for Web applications. Unfortunately, the popularity of single-threaded models comes at the price of performance and scalability, as single-threaded event-based models present limitations when parallel processing is needed, and traditional approaches to concurrency such as threads and locks don't play well with event-based systems. This dissertation proposes a programming model and a runtime system to overcome such limitations by enabling single-threaded event-based applications with support for speculative parallel execution. The model, called Parallel Event Loop, has the goal of bringing parallel execution to the domain of single-threaded event-based programming without relaxing the main characteristics of the single-threaded model, and therefore providing developers with the impression of a safe, single-threaded, runtime. Rather than supporting only pure single-threaded programming, however, the parallel event loop can also be used to derive safe, high-level, parallel programming models characterized by a strong compatibility with single-threaded runtimes. We describe three distinct implementations of speculative runtimes enabling the parallel execution of event-based applications. The first implementation we describe is a pessimistic runtime system based on locks to implement speculative parallelization. The second and the third implementations are based on two distinct optimistic runtimes using software transactional memory. Each of the implementations supports the parallelization of applications written using an asynchronous single-threaded programming style, and each of them enables applications to benefit from parallel execution

Sensor web geoprocessing on the grid

Recent standardisation initiatives in the fields of grid computing and geospatial sensor middleware provide an exciting opportunity for the composition of large scale geospatial monitoring and prediction systems from existing components. Sensor middleware standards are paving the way for the emerging sensor web which is envisioned to make millions of geospatial sensors and their data publicly accessible by providing discovery, task and query functionality over the internet. In a similar fashion, concurrent development is taking place in the field of grid computing whereby the virtualisation of computational and data storage resources using middleware abstraction provides a framework to share computing resources. Sensor web and grid computing share a common vision of world-wide connectivity and in their current form they are both realised using web services as the underlying technological framework. The integration of sensor web and grid computing middleware using open standards is expected to facilitate interoperability and scalability in near real-time geoprocessing systems. The aim of this thesis is to develop an appropriate conceptual and practical framework in which open standards in grid computing, sensor web and geospatial web services can be combined as a technological basis for the monitoring and prediction of geospatial phenomena in the earth systems domain, to facilitate real-time decision support. The primary topic of interest is how real-time sensor data can be processed on a grid computing architecture. This is addressed by creating a simple typology of real-time geoprocessing operations with respect to grid computing architectures. A geoprocessing system exemplar of each geoprocessing operation in the typology is implemented using contemporary tools and techniques which provides a basis from which to validate the standards frameworks and highlight issues of scalability and interoperability. It was found that it is possible to combine standardised web services from each of these aforementioned domains despite issues of interoperability resulting from differences in web service style and security between specifications. A novel integration method for the continuous processing of a sensor observation stream is suggested in which a perpetual processing job is submitted as a single continuous compute job. Although this method was found to be successful two key challenges remain; a mechanism for consistently scheduling real-time jobs within an acceptable time-frame must be devised and the tradeoff between efficient grid resource utilisation and processing latency must be balanced. The lack of actual implementations of distributed geoprocessing systems built using sensor web and grid computing has hindered the development of standards, tools and frameworks in this area. This work provides a contribution to the small number of existing implementations in this field by identifying potential workflow bottlenecks in such systems and gaps in the existing specifications. Furthermore it sets out a typology of real-time geoprocessing operations that are anticipated to facilitate the development of real-time geoprocessing software.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) : School of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Newcastle UniversityGBUnited Kingdo