Transaction scheduling protocols for controlling priority inversion: A review

被引:13
作者
Pandey, Sarvesh [1 ]
Shanker, Udai [1 ]
机构
[1] MMM Univ Technol, Dept CSE, Gorakhpur 273010, Uttar Pradesh, India
关键词
Commit protocol; Concurrency control; Execute-execute conflicts; Execute commit conflicts; Priority inversion; DRTDBS; REAL-TIME DATABASES; CONCURRENCY-CONTROL MECHANISMS; TRIGGERED TRANSACTIONS; DEADLINE ASSIGNMENT; PERFORMANCE; MANAGEMENT; SYSTEMS; MULTIVERSION; INHERITANCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.cosrev.2019.100215
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
In advanced real-time distributed computing databases, the main performance criterion is to reduce the 'deadline miss' by the transactions; of course, consistency constraints also need to be satisfied. The goal of these applications is not to provide simply real-time transaction execution, but rather to provide a highly predictable, analysable, schedulable and reliable distributed computing platform to the users. The problem of resource conflicts amongst distributed real-time transactions and their handlings through various priority scheduling protocols highly affect the performance of the underlying applications. The past research works were mostly restricted to extend the traditional transaction processing techniques to resolve the issue of conflicts, and thus to improve the performance. The last review paper, largely on this issue, appeared in Shanker et al. (2008) [1]; since then many noteworthy algorithms have been described in the literature. Till date, no study was found discussing transaction processing techniques with data conflict issue in focus. Hence, our objective is to comprehensively discuss the state-of-the-art transaction scheduling protocols with an emphasis on the handling of execute-execute & execute-commit conflicts, and real-time optimistic concurrency control (OCC) protocols. The strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches are also discussed. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 166 条
[51]   Performance of multiversion and distributed two-phase locking concurrency control mechanisms in distributed databases [J].
Burger, A ;
Kumar, V ;
Hines, ML .
INFORMATION SCIENCES, 1997, 96 (1-2) :129-152
[52]   Real-time transaction scheduling: A framework for synthesizing static and dynamic factors [J].
Chakravarthy, S ;
Hong, DK ;
Johnson, T .
REAL-TIME SYSTEMS, 1998, 14 (02) :135-170
[53]   DYNAMIC PRIORITY CEILINGS - A CONCURRENCY-CONTROL PROTOCOL FOR REAL-TIME SYSTEMS [J].
CHEN, MI ;
LIN, KJ .
REAL-TIME SYSTEMS, 1990, 2 (04) :325-346
[54]  
Chrysanthis PK, 1998, RECOVERY MECHANISMS IN DATABASE SYSTEMS, P370
[55]   Buffer management in real-time active database systems [J].
Datta, A ;
Mukherjee, S ;
Viguier, IR .
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, 1998, 42 (03) :227-246
[56]   Is a bird in the hand worth more than two in the bush? Limitations of priority cognizance in conflict resolution for firm real-time database systems [J].
Datta, A ;
Son, SH ;
Kumar, V .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, 2000, 49 (05) :482-502
[57]   A study of concurrency control in real-time, active database systems [J].
Datta, A ;
Son, SH .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, 2002, 14 (03) :465-484
[58]  
Deantoni J, 2015, DES AUT TEST EUROPE, P313
[59]  
Elmasri R., 2008, FUNDAMENTALS DATABAS
[60]  
Eriksson J, 1998, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V1553, P1