skip to main content
10.1145/2806777.2806841acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

Database high availability using SHADOW systems

Published:27 August 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Hot standby techniques are widely used to implement highly available database systems. These techniques make use of two separate copies of the database, an active copy and a backup that is managed by the standby. The two database copies are stored independently and synchronized by the database systems that manage them. However, database systems deployed in computing clouds often have access to reliable persistent storage that can be shared by multiple servers. In this paper we consider how hot standby techniques can be improved in such settings.

We present SHADOW systems, a novel approach to hot standby high availability. Like other database systems that use shared storage, SHADOW systems push the task of managing database replication out of the database system and into the underlying storage service, simplifying the database system. Unlike other systems, SHADOW systems also provide write offloading, which frees the active database system from the need to update the persistent database. Instead, that responsibility is placed on the standby system. We present the results of a performance evaluation using a SHADOW prototype on Amazon's cloud, showing that write offloading enables SHADOW to outperform traditional hot standby replication and even a standalone DBMS that does not provide high availability.

References

  1. Transparent application scaling with IBM DB2 pureScale. IBM white paper, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Oracle Real Application Clusters 11g release 2. Oracle white paper, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon Relational Database Service User Guide, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. PostgreSQL 9.3 Documentation, 2014. URL http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Baker et al. Megastore: Providing scalable, highly available storage for interactive services. In Proc. CIDR, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Bartkowski et al. High availability and disaster recovery options for DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows. IBM Redbook, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. P. A. Bernstein, I. Cseri, N. Dani, N. Ellis, A. Kallan, G. Kakivaya, D. B. Lomet, R. Manne, L. Novik, and T. Talius. Adapting Microsoft SQL Server for cloud computing. In Proc. ICDE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. B. F. Cooper, R. Ramakrishnan, et al. Pnuts: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform. In Proc. VLDB, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. C. Corbett, et al. Spanner: Google's globally-distributed database. In Proc. USENIX OSDI, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Cowling and B. Liskov. Granola: Low-overhead distributed transaction coordination. In Proc. USENIX ATC, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. Gray and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Hart and S. Jesse. Oracle Database 10g High Availability with RAC, Flashback, and Data Guard. McGraw-Hill, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Komo. Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 high availability technologies. Microsoft white paper, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. L. Lamport. The part-time parliament. ACM TODS, 16(2): 133--169, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Mohan, D. J. Haderle, B. G. Lindsay, H. Pirahesh, and P. M. Schwarz. ARIES: A transaction recovery method supporting fine-granularity locking and partial rollbacks using write-ahead logging. ACM TODS, 17(1):94--162, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. A. Patterson, G. A. Gibson, and R. H. Katz. A case for redundant arrays of inexpensive disks (RAID). In Proc. SIGMOD, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Stonebraker. The case for shared nothing. IEEE Database Eng. Bull., 9(1):4--9, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. The Tandem Database Group. NonStop SQL, a distributed high performance, high availability implementation of SQL. In Proc. HPTS, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. L. Tuttle, Jr. Microsoft SQL Server AlwaysOn solutions guide for high availability and disaster recovery. Microsoft white paper, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. S. B. Vaghani. Virtual machine file system. ACM SIGOPS OSR, 44(4):57--70, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Database high availability using SHADOW systems

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SoCC '15: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
        August 2015
        446 pages
        ISBN:9781450336512
        DOI:10.1145/2806777

        Copyright © 2015 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 August 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SoCC '15 Paper Acceptance Rate34of157submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate169of722submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader