<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br><div><div>On 11 Feb 2011, at 17:56, Sebastiano Peluso wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi all,<br><br>first let us introduce ourselves given that it's the first time we write in this mailing list.<br><br>Our names are Sebastiano Peluso and Diego Didona, and we are working at INESC-ID Lisbon in the context of the Cloud-TM project. Our work is framed in the context of self-adaptive replication mechanisms (please refer to previous message by Paolo on this mailing list and to the <a href="http://www.cloudtm.eu">www.cloudtm.eu</a> website for additional details on this project).<br><br>Up to date we have been working on developing a relatively simple primary-backup (PB) replication mechanism, which we integrated within Infinispan 4.2 and 5.0. In this kind of scheme only one node (called the primary) is allowed to process update transactions, whereas the remaining nodes only process read-only transactions. This allows coping very efficiently with write transactions, as the primary does not have to incur in the cost of remote coordination schemes nor in distributed deadlocks, which can hamper performance at high contention with two phase commit schemes. With PB, in fact, the primary can serialize transactions locally, and simply propagate the updates to the backups for fault-tolerance as well as to allow them to process read-only transactions on fresh data of course. On the other hand, the primary is clearly prone to become the bottleneck especially in large clusters and write intensive workloads.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>So when you say "serialize transactions locally" does this mean you don't do distributed locking? Or is "locally" not referring simply to the primary?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Thus, this scheme does not really represent a replacement for the default 2PC protocol, but rather an alternative approach that results particularly attractive (as we will illustrate in the following with some radargun-based performance results) in small scale clusters, or, in "elastic" cloud scenarios, in periods where the workload is either read dominated or not very intense.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure what you mean by a "replacement" for 2PC? 2PC is for atomicity (consensus). It's the A in ACID. It's not the C, I or D.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> Being this scheme particularly efficient in these scenarios, in fact, its adoption would allow to minimize the number of resources acquired from the cloud provider in these periods, with direct benefits in terms of cost reductions. In Cloud-TM, in fact, we aim at designing autonomic mechanisms that would dynamically switch among multiple replication mechanisms depending on the current workload characteristics.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Replication and transactions aren't mutually inconsistent things. They can be merged quite well :-)</div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/articles/papers/845.pdf"></a><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/articles/papers/845.pdf"></a><br></div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/articles/papers/845.pdf">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/articles/papers/845.pdf</a></div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/687.pdf">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/687.pdf</a></div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/586.pdf">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/586.pdf</a></div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/596.pdf">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/596.pdf</a></div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/trnn/papers/117.pdf">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/trnn/papers/117.pdf</a></div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/621.pdf">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/621.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>The reason I mention these is because I don't quite understand what your goal is/was with regards to transactions and replication.</div><div><a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/articles/papers/845.pdf"></a><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Before discussing the results of our preliminary benchmarking study, we would like to briefly overview how we integrated this replication mechanism within Infinispan. Any comment/feedback is clearly highly appreciated. First of all we have defined a new command, namely PassiveReplicationCommand, that is a subclass of PrepareCommand. We had to define a new command because we had to design customized "visiting" methods for the interceptors. Note that our protocol only affects the commit phase of a transaction, specifically, during the prepare phase, in the prepare method of the TransactionXaAdapter class, if the Primary Backup mode is enabled, then a PassiveReplicationCommand is built by the CommandsFactory and it is passed to the invoke method of the invoker. The PassiveReplicationCommand is then visited by the all the interceptors in the chain, by means of the visitPassiveReplicationCommand methods. We describe more in detail the operations performed by the non-trivial interceptors:<br><br>-TxInterceptor: like in the 2PC protocol, if the context is not originated locally, then for each modification stored in the PassiveReplicationCommand the chain of interceptors is invoked.<br>-LockingInterceptor: first the next interceptor is called, then the cleanupLocks is performed with the second parameter set to true (commit the operations). This operation is always safe: on the primary it is called only after that the acks from all the slaves are received (see the ReplicationInterceptor below); on the slave there are no concurrent conflicting writes since these are already locally serialized by the locking scheme performed at the primary.<br>-ReplicationInterceptor: first it invokes the next iterceptor; then if the predicate shouldInvokeRemoteTxCommand(ctx) is true, then the method rpcManager.broadcastRpcCommand(command, true, false) is performed, that replicates the modifications in a synchronous mode (waiting for an explicit ack from all the backups).<br><br>As for the commit phase:<br>-Given that in the Primary Backup the prepare phase works as a commit too, the commit method on a TransactionXaAdapter object in this case simply returns.<br><br>On the resulting extended Infinispan version a subset of unit/functional tests were executed and successfully passed:<br>- commands.CommandIdUniquenessTest<br>- replication.SyncReplicatedAPITest<br>- replication.SyncReplImplicitLockingTest<br>- replication.SyncReplLockingTest<br>- replication.SyncReplTest<br>- replication.SyncCacheListenerTest<br>- replication.ReplicationExceptionTest<br><br><br>We have tested this solution using a customized version of Radargun. Our customizations were first of all aimed at having each thread accessing data within transactions, instead of executing single put/get operations. In addition, now every Stresser thread accesses with uniform probability all of the keys stored by Infinispan, thus generating conflicts with a probability proportional to the number of concurrently active threads and inversely proportional to the total number of keys maintained.<br><br>As already hinted, our results highlight that, depending on the current workload/number of nodes in the system, it is possible to identify scenarios where the PB scheme significantly outperforms the current 2PC scheme, and vice versa.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm obviously missing something here, because it still seems like you are attempting to compare incomparable things. It's not like comparing apples and oranges (at least they are both fruit), but more like apples and broccoli ;-)</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> Our experiments were performed in a cluster of homogeneous 8-core (Xeon@2.16GhZ) nodes interconnected via a Gigabit Ethernet and running a Linux Kernel 64 bit version 2.6.32-21-server. The results were obtained by running for 30 seconds 8 parallel Stresser threads per nodes, and letting the number of node vary from 2 to 10. In 2PC, each thread executes transactions which consist of 10 (get/put) operations, with a 10% of probability of generating a put operation. With PB, the same kind of transactions are executed on the primary, but the backups execute read-only transactions composed of 10 get operations. This allows to compare the maximum throughput of update transactions provided by the two compared schemes, without excessively favoring PB by keeping the backups totally idle.<br><br>The total write transactions' throughput exhibited by the cluster (i.e. not the throughput per node) is shown in the attached plots, relevant to caches containing 1000, 10000 and 100000 keys. As already discussed, the lower the number of keys, the higher the chance of contention and the probability of aborts due to conflicts. In particular with the 2PC scheme the number of failed transactions steadily increases at high contention up to 6% (to the best of our understanding in particular due to distributed deadlocks). With PB, instead the number of failed txs due to contention is always 0.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Maybe you don't mean 2PC, but pessimistic locking? I'm still not too sure. But I am pretty sure it's not 2PC you mean.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Note that, currently, we are assuming that backup nodes do not generate update transactions. In practice this corresponds to assuming the presence of some load balancing scheme which directs (all and only) update transactions to the primary node, and read transactions to the backup.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Can I say it again? Serialisability?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> In the negative case (a put operation is generated on a backup node), we simply throw a PassiveReplicationException at the CacheDelegate level. This is probably suboptimal/undesirable in real settings, as update transactions may be transparently rerouted (at least in principle!) to the primary node in a RPC-style. Any suggestion on how to implement such a redirection facility in a transparent/non-intrusive manner would be highly appreciated of course! ;-)<br><br>To conclude, we are currently working on a statistical model that is able to predict the best suited replication scheme given the current workload/number of machines, as well as on a mechanism to dynamically switch from one replication scheme to the other.<br><br><br>We'll keep you posted on our progresses!<br><br>Regards,<br> Sebastiano Peluso, Diego Didona<br><span><PCvsPR_WRITE_TX_1000keys.png></span><span><PCvsPR_WRITE_TX_10000keys.png></span><span><PCvsPR_WRITE_TX_100000keys.png></span>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:<br>Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.<br>Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.<br>Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.<br><a href="http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb_______________________________________________">http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb_______________________________________________</a><br>Cloudtm-discussion mailing list<br>Cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net<br>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 12px; "><div><div>---</div><div>Mark Little</div><div><a href="mailto:mlittle@redhat.com">mlittle@redhat.com</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>JBoss, by Red Hat</div><div>Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.</div><div>Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).</div></div><div><br></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br></div></body></html>