Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Replica Control

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Database Systems

  • 31 Accesses

Synonyms

Cluster database replication; Database replication; Data replication protocols

Definition

In database replication, each data item has several physical copies, also called replicas, that are distributed over different nodes (sites). In case of full replication, each data item has a copy on each site. In this case, the term replica can also refer to a node hosting a copy of the entire database. Replica control is in charge of translating the read and write operations that clients submit on the logical data items into operations on the physical data copies. The goal is to keep a consistent state among all the replicas and to provide a consistent view of the data to the client. Replica control extends concurrency control in order to coordinate the execution of concurrent transactions at different replicas.

Historical Background

Replica control in databases has been studied since the 1980s. Early approaches mostly explored distributed locking and had their main focus on providing...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 4,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 6,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading

  1. Amza C, Cox AL, Zwaenepoel W. Distributed versioning: consistent replication for scaling back-end databases of dynamic content web sites. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/USENIX International Middleware Conference; 2003. p. 282–304.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bernstein PA, Fekete A, Guo H, Ramakrishnan R, Tamma P. Relaxed-currency serializability for middle-tier caching and replication. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2006. p. 599–610.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernstein PA, Hadzilacos V, Goodman N. Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley: Reading; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bornea MA, Hodson O, Elnikety S, Fekete A. One-copy serializability with snapshot isolation under the hood. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Data Engineering; 2011. p. 625–36.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cecchet E, Candea G, Ailamaki A. Middleware-based database replication: the gaps between theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2008. p. 739–52.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chairunnanda P, Daudjee K, Tamer Özsu M. Confluxdb: multi-master replication for partitioned snapshot isolation databases. Proc. VLDB Endow. 2014;7(11):947–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Corbett JC, Dean J, Epstein M, Fikes A, Frost C, Furman JJ, et al. Spanner: Google’s globally distributed database. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 2013;31(3):8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Daudjee K, Salem K. Lazy database replication with snapshot isolation. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2006. p. 715–26.

    Google Scholar 

  9. DeCandia G, Hastorun D, Jampani M, Kakulapati G, Lakshman A, Pilchin A, et al. Dynamo: Amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles; 2007. p. 205–20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gray J, Helland P, O’Neil P, Shasha D. The dangers of replication and a solution. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1996. p. 173–82.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jung H, Han H, Fekete A, Röhm U. Serializable snapshot isolation for replicated databases in high-update scenarios. Proc. VLDB Endow. 2011;4(11): 783–94.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kemme B, Alonso G. Don’t be lazy, be consistent: Postgres-r, a new way to implement database replication. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2000. p. 134–43.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lamport L. The part-time parliament. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 1998;16(2):133–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin Y, Kemme B, Patiño-Martínez M, Jiménez-Peris R. Middleware based data replication providing snapshot isolation. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2005. p. 419–30.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Patiño-Martínez M, Jiménez-Peris R, Kemme B, Alonso G. Middle-r: consistent database replication at the middleware level. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 2005;23(4):375–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pedone F, Guerraoui R, Schiper A. The database state machine approach. Distrib Parallel Databases. 2003;14(1).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pedone F, Wiesmann M, Schiper A, Kemme B, Alonso G. Understanding replication in databases and distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems; 2000. p. 464–74.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Plattner Ch, Alonso G. Ganymed: scalable replication for transactional web applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/USENIX 5th International Middleware Conference; 2004. p. 155–74.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Rao J, Shekita EJ, Tata S. Using paxos to build a scalable, consistent, and highly available datastore. PVLDB. 2011;4(4):243–54.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Röhm U, Böhm K, Schek H-J, Schuldt H. FAS – a freshness-sensitive coordination middleware for a cluster of OLAP components. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2002. p. 754–65.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Saito Y, Shapiro M. Optimistic replication. ACM Comput Surv. 2005;37(1):42–81.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Sovran Y, Power R, Aguilera MK, Li J. Transactional storage for geo-replicated systems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles; 2011. p. 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomson A, Diamond T, Weng S-C, Ren K, Shao P, Abadi DJ. Calvin: fast distributed transactions for partitioned database systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2012. p. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Distributed Systems Lab, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Ricardo Jiménez-Peris & Marta Patiño-Martínez

  2. ETSI Informáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain

    Marta Patiño-Martínez

Authors
  1. Ricardo Jiménez-Peris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Patiño-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Jiménez-Peris .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology College of Computing, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ling Liu

  2. University of Waterloo School of Computer Science, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    M. Tamer Özsu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Jiménez-Peris, R., Patiño-Martínez, M. (2018). Replica Control. In: Liu, L., Özsu, M.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_310

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation