This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Performance Comparison of Three Modern DBMS Architectures
February 1993 (vol. 19 no. 2)
pp. 120-138

The introduction of powerful workstations connected through local area networks (LANs) inspired new database management system (DBMS) architectures that offer high performance characteristics. The authors examine three such software architecture configurations: client-server (CS), the RAD-UNIFY type of DBMS (RU), and enhanced client-server (ECS). Their specific functional components and design rationales are discussed. Three simulation models are used to provide a performance comparison under different job workloads. Simulation results show that the RU almost always performs slightly better than the CS, especially under light workloads, and that ECS offers significant performance improvement over both CS and RU. Under reasonable update rates, the ECS over CS (or RU) performance ratio is almost proportional to the number of participating clients (for less than 32 clients). The authors also examine the impact of certain key parameters on the performance of the three architectures and show that ECS is more scalable that the other two.

[1] R. Agrawal, M. J. Carey, and M. Linvy, "Concurrency control performance modelling: Alternatives and implications,"ACM Trans. Database Syst., vol. 12, pp. 609-654, Dec. 1987.
[2] R. Alonso, D. Barbara, and H. Garcia-Molina, "Data Caching Issues in an Information Retrieval System,"ACM Trans. Database Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, Sept. 1990, pp. 359-384.
[3] J. Archibald and J. L. Baer, "Cache-coherence protocols: Evaluation using a multiprocessor simulation model,"ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 273-298, Nov. 1986.
[4] H. Boral and D. DeWitt, "A methodology for database system performance evaluation," inProc. SIGMOD--Conf. Management of Data, Boston, MA, June 1984.
[5] M. J. Carey, M. J. Franklin, M. Livny, and D. J. Shekita, "Data caching trade-offs in client-server DBMS architectures," inACM SIGMOD, Denver, CO, May 1991, pp. 357-366.
[6] A. Delis and N. Roussopoulos, "Server based information retrieval systems under light update loads," inProc. 1991 IEEE Int. Conf. Syst., Man, Cybern., Charlottsville, VA, Oct. 1991.
[7] A. Delis and N. Roussopoulos, "Performance and scalability of client-server database architectures," inProc. 18th Very Large Data Bases Conf., Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 1992, pp. 610-623.
[8] D. DeWitt, D. Maier, P. Futtersack, and F. Velez, "A study of three alternative workstation-server architectures for object-oriented database systems," inProc. 16th Very Large Data Bases Conf., Brisbane, Australia, 1990, pp. 107-121.
[9] D. Ferrari,Computer Systems Performance Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.
[10] J. Gray, R. Lorie, G. Putzolu, and I. Traiger, "Granularity of locks and degrees of consistency in a shared database," Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976, ch. 6.
[11] R. Hagman and D. Ferrari, "Performance analysis of several back-end database architectures,"Ass. Comput. Mach. Trans. Database Syst., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-26, Mar. 1986.
[12] A. Kumar and M. Stonebraker, "Performance considerations for an operating system transaction manager,"IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 705-714, June 1989.
[13] K. Kuespert, P. Dadam, and J. Guenauer, "Cooperative object buffer management in the advanced information management prototype,"VLDB, 1987.
[14] J. Purtilo and P. Jalote, "An environment for developing fault-tolerant software,"IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 17, pp. 153-159, Feb. 1991.
[15] N. Roussopoulos, " The incremental access method of ViewCache: Concept and cost analysis," Dep. Comput. Sci. Inst. Advanced Computer Studies, Univ. Maryland, College Park, Tech. Rep. UMIACS-TR-89-15, CS-TR-2193, Mar. 1989; to appear inACM Trans. Database Syst.
[16] N. Roussopoulos and A. Delis, "Evaluation of an enhanced workstation-server DBMS architecture," University of Maryland, College Park, MD, Tech. Rep. UMIACS-TR-91-30, Feb. 1991.
[17] N. Roussopoulos and A. Delis, "Modern client-server DBMS architectures," inAss. Comput. Mach-SIGMOD Conf. Rec., Sept. 1991.
[18] N. Roussopoulos and H. Kang, "Principles and techniques in the design of ADMS±,"computer, vol. 19, no. 12, Dec. 1986.
[19] W. R. Rubinstein, M. S. Kubicar, and R. G. G. Cattell, "Benchmarking simple database operations," in [51], pp. 387-394.
[20] M. Satyanarayanan, J. Kistler, P. Kumar, M. Okasaki, E. Siegel, and D. Steere, "Coda: A highly available file system for a distributed workstation environment,"IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 39, no. 4, Apr. 1990.
[21] D. Severance, "Differential files: their application to the maintenance of large databases,"ACM Trans. Data Base Syst., vol. 1, pp. 256-267, 1976.
[22] R. Stevens,Unix Networking Programming. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
[23] M. Stonebraker, "Architectures of future data base systems,"IEEE Data Eng. Newslett.vol. 13, no. 4, Dec. 1990.
[24] J. D. Ullman,Principles of Database and Knowledge Base Systems, vol. II:The New Technologies. Rockville, MD: Comput. Sci. Press, 1989.
[25] Y. Wang and L. A. Rowe, "Cache consistency and concurrency control in a client/server DBMS architecture," inProc. 1991 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, May 1991, pp. 367-376.
[26] K. Wilkinson and M. A. Neimat, "Maintaining consistency of client-cached data," inProc. Int. Conf. Very large Data Bases, Brisbane, Australia, Aug. 1990.

Index Terms:
simulation results; DBMS architectures; workstations; local area networks; software architecture configurations; client-server; RAD-UNIFY type; functional components; design rationales; simulation models; database management systems; performance evaluation; software engineering
Citation:
A. Delis, N. Roussopoulos, "Performance Comparison of Three Modern DBMS Architectures," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 120-138, Feb. 1993, doi:10.1109/32.214830
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.