This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
An Analysis of the Average Message Overhead in Replica Control Protocols
October 1996 (vol. 7 no. 10)
pp. 1026-1034

Abstract—Management of replicated data has received considerable attention in the last few years. Several replica control schemes have been proposed which work in the presence of both node and communication link failures. However, this resiliency to failure inflicts a performance penalty in terms of the communication overhead incurred. Though the issue of performance of these schemes from the standpoint of availability of the system has been well addressed, the issue of message overhead has been limited to the analysis of worst case and best case message bounds. In this paper we derive expressions for computing the average message overhead of several well known replica control protocols and provide a comparative study of the different protocols with respect to both average message overhead and system availabilities.

[1] D. Agrawal and A.E. Abbadi, An Efficient and Fault-Tolerant Solution for Distributed Mutual Exclusion ACM Trans. Computing Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 1991.
[2] S.Y. Cheung, M. Ammar, and M. Ahamad, “The Grid Protocol: A High Performance Scheme for Maintaining Replicated Data,” Proc. Sixth Int'l Conf. Data Eng., pp. 438-445, Feb. 1990.
[3] M. Ahamad, M.H. Ammar, and S.Y. Cheung, "Multi-Dimensional Voting," ACM Trans. Computer Systems, pp. 399-431, Nov. 1991.
[4] P. Bernstein, V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1987.
[5] A. El Abbadi, D. Skeen, and F. Cristian, "An Efficient, Fault-Tolerant Protocol for Replicated Data Management," Proc. Fourth ACM Symp. Principles of Database Systems, pp. 215-229, 1985.
[6] D.K. Gifford, “Weighted Voting for Replicated Data,” Proc. Seventh ACM SIGOPS Symp. Operating Systems Principles, pp. 150-159, Dec. 1979.
[7] S. Jajodia and D. Mutchler, "Dynamic Voting," Proc. 1987 ACM Int'l Conf. Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 227-238, 1987.
[8] A. Kumar, “Hierarchical Quorum Consensus: A New Algorithm for Managing Replicated Data,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 996-1,004, Sept. 1991.
[9] J.F. Paris and D. Long, "Efficient Dynamic Voting," Proc. Int'l Conf. Data Eng., Jan. 1988.
[10] D.A. Menasce, Y. Yesha, and K. Kalpakis, "On a Unified Framework for the Evaluation of Distributed Quorum Attainment Protocols," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 868-884, Nov. 1994.
[11] S. Rangarajan, S. Setia, and S.K. Tripathi, "A Fault-tolerant Algorithm for Replicated Data Management," IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1,271-1,282, Dec. 1995.
[12] R.H. Thomas, “A Majority Consensus Approach to Concurrency Control,” ACM Trans. Database Systems, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 180-209, June 1979.

Index Terms:
Replica control, quorum consensus, replicated databases, message overhead, availability, update synchronization.
Citation:
Debanjan Saha, Sampath Rangarajan, Satish K. Tripathi, "An Analysis of the Average Message Overhead in Replica Control Protocols," IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1026-1034, Oct. 1996, doi:10.1109/71.539734
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.