home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!triplerock.CS.Berkeley.EDU!mao
- From: mao@triplerock.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Olson)
- Newsgroups: comp.databases
- Subject: Re: distributed transactions
- Date: 21 Aug 1992 16:46:01 GMT
- Organization: University of California at Berkeley
- Lines: 31
- Message-ID: <1736k9INNjhh@agate.berkeley.edu>
- References: <9208210244.AA07031@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> <BtC3E7.9yx@world.std.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: triplerock.cs.berkeley.edu
-
- In <BtC3E7.9yx@world.std.com>, edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards)
- writes:
-
- > In article <9208210244.AA07031@hplwk.hpl.hp.com> albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM
- > (Joseph Albert) writes:
- >
- > > If a non-blocking commit protocol is used, any transaction started at
- > > a remote site which went down can be aborted, releasing its locks, and
- > > leaving the database in a transaction-consistent state.
- >
- > Could you site some references or examples for this statement?
- > Certainly the conventional 2-phase commit protocol (which is what is
- > implemented by all commercial instances of distributed TP that I know of)
- > can easily leave you in a blocked-or-inconsistent state.
-
- the basic strategy is to add phases to the 2-phase protocol and to use
- message broadcast, so every site sees every message. see
-
- [SKEE81] Skeen, D., "Nonblocking Commit Protocols", Proc. 1981
- SIGMOD Conf.
-
- [ABB+85] Abbadi, A.E., Skeen, D., and Cristian, F., "An Efficient,
- Fault-Tolerant Protocol for Replicated Data Management",
- Proc 1985 SIGACT-SIGMOD Conf.
-
- if you have stonebraker's red book (readings in database systems), they're
- both in there.
- mike olson
- project sequoia 2000
- uc berkeley
- mao@cs.berkeley.edu
-