Date post: | 17-Jan-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lillian-griffin |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
ARIES, Concludedand Distributed Databases: R*
Zachary G. IvesUniversity of Pennsylvania
CIS 650 – Implementing Data Management Systems
October 2, 2008Some content on 2-phase commit courtesy Ramakrishnan, Gehrke
2
AdministriviaNext reading assignment: Principles of Data Integration
Chapter 3.3
No review required for this
Review Mariposa & R* for Tuesday
ARIES: Basic Data Structures
DB
Data pageseachwith apageLSN
Xact TablelastLSNstatus
Dirty Page TablerecLSN
flushedLSN
RAM
prevLSNXIDtype
lengthpageID
offsetbefore-imageafter-image
LogRecords
LOG
master record
Normal Execution of a TransactionSeries of reads & writes, followed by commit
or abortWe will assume that write is atomic on disk
In practice, additional details to deal with non-atomic writes
Strict 2PLSTEAL, NO-FORCE buffer management, with
Write-Ahead Logging
Checkpointing
Periodically, the DBMS creates a checkpoint Minimizes recovery time in the event of a system crash Write to log:
begin_checkpoint record: when checkpoint began end_checkpoint record: current Xact table and dirty page table A “fuzzy checkpoint”:
Other Xacts continue to run; so these tables accurate only as of the time of the begin_checkpoint record
No attempt to force dirty pages to disk; effectiveness of checkpoint limited by oldest unwritten change to a dirty page. (So it’s a good idea to periodically flush dirty pages to disk!)
Store LSN of checkpoint record in a safe place (master record)
Simple Transaction Abort, 1/2For now, consider an explicit abort of a Xact
(No crash involved)We want to “play back” the log in reverse
order, UNDOing updates Get lastLSN of Xact from Xact table Can follow chain of log records backward via
the prevLSN field When do we quit?
Before starting UNDO, write an Abort log record For recovering from crash during UNDO!
Abort, 2/2
To perform UNDO, must have a lock on data!No problem – no one else can be locking it
Before restoring old value of a page, write a CLR: You continue logging while you UNDO!! CLR has one extra field: undoNextLSN
Points to the next LSN to undo (i.e. the prevLSN of the record we’re currently undoing).
CLRs never Undone (but they might be Redone when repeating history: guarantees Atomicity!)
At end of UNDO, write an “end” log record
Transaction Commit
Write commit record to log All log records up to Xact’s lastLSN are
flushed Guarantees that flushedLSN lastLSN Note that log flushes are sequential,
synchronous writes to disk Many log records per log page
Commit() returns Write end record to log
Crash Recovery: Big Picture
Start from a checkpoint (found via master record)
Three phases:1. Figure out which Xacts
committed since checkpoint, which failed (Analysis)
2. REDO all actions– (repeat history)
3. UNDO effects of failed Xacts
Oldest log rec. of Xact active at crashSmallest recLSN in dirty page table after Analysis
Last chkpt
CRASH
A R U
Recovery: The Analysis PhaseReconstruct state at checkpoint
via end_checkpoint recordScan log forward from checkpoint
End record: Remove Xact from Xact table (no longer active)
Other records: Add Xact to Xact table, set lastLSN=LSN, change Xact status on commit
Update record: If P not in Dirty Page Table, Add P to D.P.T., set its recLSN=LSN
Recovery: The REDO PhaseRepeat history to reconstruct state at crash:
Reapply all updates (even of aborted Xacts!), redo CLRs Puts us in a state where we know UNDO can do right thing
Scan forward from log rec containing smallest recLSN in D.P.T.For each CLR or update log rec LSN, REDO the action unless:
Affected page is not in the Dirty Page Table, or Affected page is in D.P.T., but has recLSN > LSN, or pageLSN (in DB) LSN
To REDO an action: Reapply logged action Set pageLSN to LSN. Don’t log this!
Recovery: The UNDO PhaseToUndo = { l | l a lastLSN of a “loser” Xact}Repeat:
Choose largest LSN among ToUndo If this LSN is a CLR and undoNextLSN==NULL
Write an End record for this Xact If this LSN is a CLR and undoNextLSN != NULL
Add undoNextLSN to ToUndo Else this LSN is an update
Undo the update, write a CLR, add prevLSN to ToUndoUntil ToUndo is empty
Example of Recovery
begin_checkpoint end_checkpointupdate: T1 writes P5update T2 writes P3T1 abortCLR: Undo T1 LSN 10T1 Endupdate: T3 writes P1update: T2 writes P5CRASH, RESTART
LSN LOG 00 05 10 20 30 40 45 50 60
Xact TablelastLSNstatus
Dirty Page TablerecLSN
flushedLSN
ToUndo
prevLSNs
RAM
Example: Crash During Restart
begin_checkpoint, end_checkpointupdate: T1 writes P5update T2 writes P3T1 abortCLR: Undo T1 LSN 10, T1 Endupdate: T3 writes P1update: T2 writes P5CRASH, RESTARTCLR: Undo T2 LSN 60CLR: Undo T3 LSN 50, T3 endCRASH, RESTARTCLR: Undo T2 LSN 20, T2 end
LSN LOG00,05 10 20 3040,45 50 60
7080,85
90
Xact TablelastLSNstatus
Dirty Page TablerecLSN
flushedLSN
ToUndo
undoNextLSN
RAM
Additional Crash IssuesWhat happens if system crashes during
Analysis?
How do you limit the amount of work in REDO? Flush asynchronously in the background Watch “hot spots”!
How do you limit the amount of work in UNDO? Avoid long-running Xacts
Summary of Logging/Recovery Recovery Manager guarantees Atomicity
& Durability Use WAL to allow STEAL/NO-FORCE w/o
sacrificing correctness LSNs identify log records; linked into
backwards chains per transaction (via prevLSN)
pageLSN allows comparison of data page and log records
Summary, Continued Checkpointing: A quick way to limit the
amount of log to scan on recovery. Recovery works in 3 phases:
Analysis: Forward from checkpoint Redo: Forward from oldest recLSN Undo: Backward from end to first LSN of oldest
Xact alive at crash Upon Undo, write CLRs Redo “repeats history”: Simplifies the logic!
18
Distributed Databases Goal: provide an abstraction of a single database,
but with the data distributed on different sites Pose a new set of challenges:
Source tables (or subsets of tables) may be located on different machines
There is a data transfer cost – over the network Different CPUs have different amounts of resources Available resources change during optimization- and run-
time Today:
R*: the first “real” distributed DBMS prototype (Distributed INGRES never actually ran) – focus was a LAN, 10-12 sites
Mariposa: an attempt to distribute across the wide area
19
Issues in Distributed Databases How do we place the data?
R*: this is done by humans Mariposa: this is done via economic model
What new capabilities do we have? R*: SHIP, 2-phase dependent join, bloomjoin, … Mariposa: ship processing to another node
Challenges in optimization R*: more complex cost model, more exec. options Mariposa: bidding on computation and other
resources
20
System-R* Optimization Focus: distributed joins
1. Can ship a table and then join it (“ship whole”)2. Can probe the inner table and return matches
(“fetch matches”) Their measurements favored #1 – why?
Why do they require: Cardinality of outer < ½ # messages required to
ship inner Join cardinality < inner cardinality
How can the 2nd case be improved, in the spirit of block NLJ?
21
Parallelism in Joins They assert it’s better to ship from outer
relation to site of inner relation because of potential for parallelism Where?
What changes if the inner relation is horizontally partitioned across multiple sites (i.e., relations are “striped”)?
They can also exploit the possibility of parallelism in sorting for a merge join – how?
22
Other Joins Ship the inner relation and then index it Two-phase semijoin
Very similar to “fetch matches” Take S, T, sort them and remove duplicates Ship to opposite sites, use to fetch tuples that
match Merge-join the matching tuples
Bloomjoin Generate a Bloom filter from S Send to site of T, find matches Return to S, join
23
Bloom Filters (Bloom 1970) Use k hash functions, m-bit
vector For each tuple, hash key k with
each function hi Set bit hi(k) in the bit vector
Probe the Bloom filter for k’ by testing whether all hi(k’) are set
After n values have been isnerted, probability of false positive is (1 – 1/m)kn
11
1
h1(k)
h2(k)
h3(k)
h4(k)
m bits
24
Joins – “High-Speed” Network
Semijoin
R* + Temp Indices
R* (Distributed)
R* (Local)
Bloomjoin
25
R* Optimization Assessment Distributed optimization is hard! They ignore load-balance issues, and
messaging overhead is probably ~10%, but still… Shipping costs are difficult to assess, since
they depend on precise cardinality results Optimizing the plan locally, and using that as a
model for distributed processing, doesn’t provide any optimality guarantees either – doesn’t account for parallelism
Updates in R* Require Two-Phase Commit (2PC) Site at which a transaction originates is the
coordinator; other sites at which it executes are subordinates
Two rounds of communication, initiated by coordinator: Voting
Coordinator sends prepare messages, waits for yes or no votes
Then, decision or termination Coordinator sends commit or rollback messages, waits for
acks Any site can decide to abort a transaction!
27
Steps in 2PCWhen a transaction wants to commit:
Coordinator sends prepare message to each subordinate Subordinate force-writes an abort or prepare log record
and then sends a no (abort) or yes (prepare) message to coordinator
Coordinator considers votes: If unanimous yes votes, force-writes a commit log record
and sends commit message to all subordinates Else, force-writes abort log rec, and sends abort message
Subordinates force-write abort/commit log records based on message they get, then send ack message to coordinator
Coordinator writes end log record after getting all acks
28
Illustration of 2PCCoordinator Subordinate 1Subordinate 2force-write begin log entry
force-write prepared log entryforce-writeprepared log entry
send “prepare” send “prepare”
send “yes”send “yes”force-writecommit log entry
send “commit” send “commit”force-writecommit log entryforce-writecommit log entry
send “ack”send “ack”writeend log entry
Comments on 2PC Every message reflects a decision by the sender;
to ensure that this decision survives failures, it is first recorded in the local log
All log records for a transaction contain its ID and the coordinator’s ID The coordinator’s abort/commit record also includes IDs
of all subordinates Thm: there exists no distributed commit protocol
that can recover without communicating with other processes, in the presence of multiple failures!
What if a Site Fails in the Middle? If we have a commit or abort log record for transaction T,
but not an end record, we must redo/undo T If this site is the coordinator for T, keep sending commit/abort
msgs to subordinates until acks have been received If we have a prepare log record for transaction T, but not
commit/abort, this site is a subordinate for T Repeatedly contact the coordinator to find status of T, then write
commit/abort log record; redo/undo T; and write end log record If we don’t have even a prepare log record for T,
unilaterally abort and undo T This site may be coordinator! If so, subordinates may send
messages and need to also be undone
Blocking for the Coordinator If coordinator for transaction T fails,
subordinates who have voted yes cannot decide whether to commit or abort T until coordinator recovers T is blocked Even if all subordinates know each other (extra
overhead in prepare msg) they are blocked unless one of them voted no
Link and Remote Site Failures If a remote site does not respond during the
commit protocol for transaction T, either because the site failed or the link failed: If the current site is the coordinator for T, should
abort T If the current site is a subordinate, and has not
yet voted yes, it should abort T If the current site is a subordinate and has voted
yes, it is blocked until the coordinator responds!
Observations on 2PC Ack msgs used to let coordinator know
when it’s done with a transaction; until it receives all acks, it must keep T in the transaction-pending table
If the coordinator fails after sending prepare msgs but before writing commit/abort log recs, when it comes back up it aborts the transaction
34
R* Wrap-Up One of the first systems to address both
distributed query processing and distributed updates
Focus was on local-area networks, small number of sites
Next system, Mariposa, focuses on environments more like the Internet…