Advertisement

High performance distributed transaction processing in a general purpose computing environment

  • Alfred Z. Spector
  • Jeffrey L. Eppinger
  • Dean S. Daniels
  • Richard Draves
  • Joshua J. Bloch
  • Dan Duchamp
  • Randy F. Pausch
  • Dean Thompson
Architectural Issues
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 359)

Abstract

This paper argues that transaction processing adds relatively little overhead to applications that access shared abstract data objects. It also argues that transaction processing can be made easy to use for both users and implementors of shared objects. The implication is that transaction processing can be a very useful technique in a variety of application domains. To provide more evidence as to the utility of transaction systems, the paper briefly describes the Camelot Distributed Transaction Facility, which has been developed at Carnegie Mellon University. Camelot executes on a variety of uni- and multi-processors on top of the Unix-compatible, Mach operating system. The paper also describes Camelot's interfaces and contains preliminary performance information gathered on pre-alpha release versions of Camelot.

Keywords

Node Server Transaction Processing Transaction Management Deadlock Detection Operating System Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. Chang, M. Mergen. 801 Storage: Architecture and Programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Operating System Principles. ACM, November, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Eric C. Cooper. C Threads. June, 1986. Carnegie Mellon Internal Memo.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Dean S. Daniels, Alfred Z. Spector, Dean Thompson. Distributed Logging for Transaction Processing. In Sigmod '87 Proceedings. ACM, May, 1987. Also available as Technical Report CMU-CS-86-106, Carnegie-Mellon University, June 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Jeffrey L. Eppinger, Alfred Z. Spector. Virtual Memory Management for Recoverable Objects in the TABS Prototype. Technical Report CMU-CS-85-163, Carnegie-Mellon University, December, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Haskin, Y. Malachi, W. Sawdon. Recovery Management in QuickSilver. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Operating System Principles. ACM, November, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Pat Helland. Transaction Monitoring Facility. Database Engineering 8(2):9–18, June, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. P. Herlihy, J. M. Wing. Avalon: Language Support for Reliable Distributed Systems. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing. IEEE, July, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Customer Information Control System/Virtual Storage, Introduction to Program Logic SC33-0067-1 edition, IBM Corporation, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Michael B. Jones, Richard F. Rashid, Mary R. Thompson. Matchmarker: An Interface Specification Language for Distributed Processing. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 225–235. ACM, January, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Bruce G. Lindsay, Laura M. Haas, C. Mohan, Paul F. Wilms, Robert A. Yost. Computation and Communication in R*: A Distributed Database Manager. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(1):24–38, February, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bruce Lindsay, John McPherson, and Hamid Pirahesh. A Data Management Extension Architecture. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD '87, pages 220–226. ACM, May, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Barbara H. Liskov, Robert W. Scheifler. Guardians and Actions: Linguistic Support for Robust, Distributed Programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 5(3):381–404, July, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. McCord. INGRES/STAR: A Heterogeneous Distributed Relational DBMS. In Sigmod '87 Proceedings. ACM, May, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Richard F. Rashid. Threads of a New System. Unix Review 4(8):37–49, August, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Alfred Z. Spector. Distributed Transaction Processing and the Camelot System. In Yakup Paker et al. (editors), Nato Advanced Study Institute Series — Computer and Systems Sciences: Distributed Operating Systems: Theory and Practice, pages 331–353. Springer-Verlag, 1987. Also available as Carnegie Mellon Report CMU-CS-87-100, January 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Alfred Z. Spector, Kathryn R. Swedlow, ed. The Guide to the Camelot Distributed Transaction Facility: Release 1 0.4(27a) edition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Alfred Z. Spector, Dean S. Daniels, Daniel J. Duchamp, Jeffrey L. Eppinger, Randy Pausch. Distributed Transactions for Reliable Systems. In Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Operating System Principles, pages 127–146. ACM, December, 1985. Also available in Concurrency Control and Reliability in Distributed Systems, Bharat K. Bhargava, ed., pp. 214–249, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, and as Technical Report CMU-CS-85-117, Carnegie-Mellon University, September 1985.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Alfred Z. Spector, Joshua J. Bloch, Dean S. Daniels, Richard P. Draves, Dan Duchamp, Jeffrey L. Eppinger, Sherri G. Menees, Dean S. Thompson. The Camelot Project. Database Engineering 9(4), December, 1986. Also available as Technical Report CMU-CS-86-166, Carnegie-Mellon University, November 1986.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Alfred Z. Spector, Dean Thompson, Randy F. Pausch, Jeffrey L. Eppinger, Richard Draves, Dan Duchamp, Dean S. Daniels, Joshua J. Bloch. Camelot: A Distributed Transaction Facility for Mach and the Internet — An Interim Report. Carnegie-Mellon Report CMU-CS-87-129, Carnegie-Mellon University, June, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Michael Stonebraker and Larry Rowe. The Design of POSTGRES. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD '86, pages 189–222. ACM, May, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Tandem Corporation. NonStop SQL Benchmark Workbook. Technical Report 84160, Tandem, March, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Matthew J. Weinstein, Thomas W. Page, Jr., Brian K. Livezey, Gerald J. Popek. Transactions and Synchronization in a Distributed Operating System. In Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Operating System Principles, pages 115–126. ACM, December, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred Z. Spector
    • 1
  • Jeffrey L. Eppinger
    • 1
  • Dean S. Daniels
    • 1
  • Richard Draves
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Bloch
    • 1
  • Dan Duchamp
    • 1
  • Randy F. Pausch
    • 1
  • Dean Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations