Distributed Databases

Distributed Database System

 A distributed database system consists of loosely coupled sites that share
no physical component
 Database systems that run on each site are independent of each other
 Transactions may access data at one or more sites
 Types of Distributed Databases
 In a homogeneous distributed database
 All sites have identical software
 Are aware of each other and agree to cooperate in processing user
requests.
 Each site surrenders part of its autonomy in terms of right to change
schemas or software
 Appears to user as a single system
 In a heterogeneous distributed database
 Different sites may use different schemas and software
 Difference in schema is a major problem for query processing
 Difference in software is a major problem for transaction
processing
 Sites may not be aware of each other and may provide only
limited facilities for cooperation in transaction processing
 Distributed databases: Architecture
DDBMS architectures are generally developed depending on three
parameters –
Distribution -It states the physical distribution of data across the different
sites.
Autonomy-It indicates the distribution of control of the database system
and the degree to which each constituent DBMS can operate
independently.
Heterogeneity -It refers to the uniformity or dissimilarity of the data
models, system components and databases
This architecture generally has four levels of schemas
Global Conceptual Schema -Depicts the global logical View of data.
Local Conceptual Schema -Depicts logical data organization at each
site.
Local Internal Schema -Depicts physical data organization at each site.
External Schema -Depicts user view of data
 Architectural Models
Some of the common architectural models are
Client -Server Architecture for DDBMS
Peer -to -Peer Architecture for DDBMS
Multi -DBMS Architecture
Client Server Architecture for DDBMS
This is a two-level architecture where the functionality is divided into
servers and clients. The server functions primarily encompass data
management, query processing, optimization and transaction
management.

Client functions include mainly user interface. However, they have some
functions like consistency checking and transaction management. The
two different client -server architecture are
Single Server Multiple Client
Multiple Server Multiple Client
 -
Peer Architecture for DDBMS
In these systems, each peer acts both as a client and a server for
imparting database services. The peers share their resource with other
peers and co-ordinate their activities. This architecture generally has four
levels of schemas.

Global Conceptual Schema:Depicts the global logical view of data.

Local Conceptual Schema:Depicts logical data organization at each
site.
Local Internal Schema:Depicts physical data organization at each site.
External Schema:Depicts user view of data
 -
DBMS Architectures
This is an integrated database system formed by a collection of two or
more autonomous database systems. Multi-DBMS can be expressed
through six levels of schemas.
Multi-database View Level:Depicts multiple user views comprising of
subsets of the integrated distributed database.
Multi-database Conceptual Level:Depicts integrated multi-database
that comprises of global logical multi-database structure definitions.
Multi-database Internal Level:Depicts the data distribution across
different sites and multi-database to local data mapping.
Local database View Level:Depicts public view of local data.
Local database Conceptual Level:Depicts local data organization at
each site.
Local database Internal Level:Depicts physical data organization at
each site
 Distributed Data Storage
 Assume relational data model
 Replication
 System maintains multiple copies of data, stored in different sites,
for faster retrieval and fault tolerance.
 Fragmentation
 Relation is partitioned into several fragments stored in distinct sites
 Replication and fragmentation can be combined
 Relation is partitioned into several fragments: system maintains
several identical replicas of each such fragment.
 Data Replication
 A relation or fragment of a relation is replicated if it is stored
redundantly in two or more sites.
 Full replication of a relation is the case where the relation is stored at all
sites.
 Fully redundant databases are those in which every site contains a
copy of the entire database.
 Data Replication (Cont.)

 Advantages of Replication
 Availability: failure of site containing relation r does not result in
unavailability of r is replicas exist.
 Parallelism: queries on r may be processed by several nodes in parallel.
 Reduced data transfer: relation r is available locally at each site
containing a replica of r.
 Disadvantages of Replication
 Increased cost of updates: each replica of relation r must be updated.

 Increased complexity of concurrency control: concurrent updates to

distinct replicas may lead to inconsistent data unless special
concurrency control mechanisms are implemented.
 One solution: choose one copy as primary copy and apply
concurrency control operations on primary copy
 Data Fragmentation

 Division of relation r into fragments r1, r2, …, rn which contain

sufficient information to reconstruct relation r.
 Horizontal fragmentation: each tuple of r is assigned to one
or more fragments
 Vertical fragmentation: the schema for relation r is split into
several smaller schemas
 All schemas must contain a common candidate key (or
superkey) to ensure lossless join property.
 A special attribute, the tuple-id attribute may be added to
each schema to serve as a candidate key.
Horizontal Fragmentation of account Relation

branch_name account_number balance

Hillside A-305 500

Hillside A-226 336
Hillside A-155 62

account1 = branch_name=“Hillside” (account )

branch_name account_number balance

Valleyview A-177 205

Valleyview A-402 10000
Valleyview A-408 1123
Valleyview A-639 750

account2 = branch_name=“Valleyview” (account )

 Vertical Fragmentation of employee_info Relation

branch_name customer_name tuple_id

Hillside Lowman 1
Hillside Camp 2
Valleyview Camp 3
Valleyview Kahn 4
Hillside Kahn 5
Valleyview Kahn 6
Valleyview Green 7
deposit1 = branch_name, customer_name, tuple_id (employee_info )
account_number balance tuple_id

A-305 500 1
A-226 336 2
A-177 205 3
A-402 10000 4
A-155 62 5
A-408 1123 6
A-639 750 7
deposit2 = account_number, balance, tuple_id (employee_info )
 Advantages of Fragmentation

 Horizontal:
 allows parallel processing on fragments of a relation
 allows a relation to be split so that tuples are located where
they are most frequently accessed
 Vertical:
 allows tuples to be split so that each part of the tuple is
stored where it is most frequently accessed
 tuple-id attribute allows efficient joining of vertical fragments
 allows parallel processing on a relation
 Vertical and horizontal fragmentation can be mixed.
 Fragments may be successively fragmented to an arbitrary
depth.
 Data Transparency
 Data transparency: Degree to which system user may remain unaware
of the details of how and where the data items are stored in a distributed
system
 Consider transparency issues in relation to:
 Fragmentation transparency
 Replication transparency
 Location transparency
 Naming of Data Items - Criteria
1. Every data item must have a system-wide unique name.
2. It should be possible to find the location of data items efficiently.
3. It should be possible to change the location of data items
transparently.
4. Each site should be able to create new data items autonomously.
 Centralized Scheme - Name Server
 Structure:
 name server assigns all names
 each site maintains a record of local data items
 sites ask name server to locate non-local data items
 Advantages:
 satisfies naming criteria 1-3
 Disadvantages:
 does not satisfy naming criterion 4
 name server is a potential performance bottleneck
 name server is a single point of failure
 Use of Aliases
 Alternative to centralized scheme: each site prefixes its own site
identifier to any name that it generates i.e., site 17.account.
 Fulfills having a unique identifier, and avoids problems associated
with central control.
 However, fails to achieve network transparency.
 Solution: Create a set of aliases for data items; Store the mapping of
aliases to the real names at each site.
 The user can be unaware of the physical location of a data item, and
is unaffected if the data item is moved from one site to another.
Distributed Transactions
and 2 Phase Commit
 Distributed Transactions
 Transaction may access data at several sites.
 Each site has a local transaction manager responsible for:
 Maintaining a log for recovery purposes
 Participating in coordinating the concurrent execution of the
transactions executing at that site.
 Each site has a transaction coordinator, which is responsible for:
 Starting the execution of transactions that originate at the site.
 Distributing subtransactions at appropriate sites for execution.
 Coordinating the termination of each transaction that originates at
the site, which may result in the transaction being committed at all
sites or aborted at all sites.
Transaction System Architecture
 System Failure Modes
 Failures unique to distributed systems:
 Failure of a site.
 Loss of massages
 Handled by network transmission control protocols such as
TCP-IP
 Failure of a communication link
 Handled by network protocols, by routing messages via
alternative links
 Network partition
 A network is said to be partitioned when it has been split into
two or more subsystems that lack any connection between
them
– Note: a subsystem may consist of a single node
 Network partitioning and site failures are generally indistinguishable.
 Commit Protocols
 Commit protocols are used to ensure atomicity across sites
 a transaction which executes at multiple sites must either be
committed at all the sites, or aborted at all the sites.
 not acceptable to have a transaction committed at one site and
aborted at another
 The two-phase commit (2PC) protocol is widely used
 The three-phase commit (3PC) protocol is more complicated and
more expensive, but avoids some drawbacks of two-phase commit
protocol. This protocol is not used in practice.
 Two Phase Commit Protocol (2PC)
 Assumes fail-stop model – failed sites simply stop working, and do
not cause any other harm, such as sending incorrect messages to
other sites.
 Execution of the protocol is initiated by the coordinator after the last
step of the transaction has been reached.
 The protocol involves all the local sites at which the transaction
executed
 Let T be a transaction initiated at site Si, and let the transaction
coordinator at Si be Ci
 Phase 1: Obtaining a Decision
 Coordinator asks all participants to prepare to commit transaction Ti.
 Ci adds the records <prepare T> to the log and forces log to
stable storage
 sends prepare T messages to all sites at which T executed
 Upon receiving message, transaction manager at site determines if it
can commit the transaction
 if not, add a record <no T> to the log and send abort T message
to Ci
 if the transaction can be committed, then:
 add the record <ready T> to the log
 force all records for T to stable storage
 send ready T message to Ci
 Phase 2: Recording the Decision
 T can be committed of Ci received a ready T message from all the
participating sites: otherwise T must be aborted.
 Coordinator adds a decision record, <commit T> or <abort T>, to the
log and forces record onto stable storage. Once the record stable
storage it is irrevocable (even if failures occur)
 Coordinator sends a message to each participant informing it of the
decision (commit or abort)
 Participants take appropriate action locally.
 Handling of Failures - Site Failure
When site Si recovers, it examines its log to determine the fate of
transactions active at the time of the failure.
 Log contain <commit T> record: txn had completed, nothing to be done
 Log contains <abort T> record: txn had completed, nothing to be done
 Log contains <ready T> record: site must consult Ci to determine the
fate of T.
 If T committed, redo (T); write <commit T> record
 If T aborted, undo (T)
 The log contains no log records concerning T:
 Implies that Sk failed before responding to the prepare T message
from Ci
 since the failure of Sk precludes the sending of such a response,
coordinator C1 must abort T
 Sk must execute undo (T)
 Handling of Failures- Coordinator Failure

 If coordinator fails while the commit protocol for T is executing then

participating sites must decide on T’s fate:
1. If an active site contains a <commit T> record in its log, then T must be
committed.
2. If an active site contains an <abort T> record in its log, then T must be
aborted.
3. If some active participating site does not contain a <ready T> record in its
log, then the failed coordinator Ci cannot have decided to commit T.
 Can therefore abort T; however, such a site must reject any
subsequent <prepare T> message from Ci
4. If none of the above cases holds, then all active sites must have a <ready
T> record in their logs, but no additional control records (such as <abort
T> of <commit T>).
 In this case active sites must wait for Ci to recover, to find decision.
 Blocking problem: active sites may have to wait for failed coordinator to
recover.
 Handling of Failures - Network Partition
 If the coordinator and all its participants remain in one partition, the
failure has no effect on the commit protocol.
 If the coordinator and its participants belong to several partitions:
 Sites that are not in the partition containing the coordinator think
the coordinator has failed, and execute the protocol to deal with
failure of the coordinator.
 No harm results, but sites may still have to wait for decision
from coordinator.
 The coordinator and the sites are in the same partition as the
coordinator think that the sites in the other partition have failed, and
follow the usual commit protocol.
 Again, no harm results
 Recovery and Concurrency Control
 In-doubt transactions have a <ready T>, but neither a
<commit T>, nor an <abort T> log record.
 The recovering site must determine the commit-abort status of such
transactions by contacting other sites; this can slow and potentially
block recovery.
 Recovery algorithms can note lock information in the log.
 Instead of <ready T>, write out <ready T, L> L = list of locks held
by T when the log is written (read locks can be omitted).
 For every in-doubt transaction T, all the locks noted in the
<ready T, L> log record are reacquired.
 After lock reacquisition, transaction processing can resume; the
commit or rollback of in-doubt transactions is performed concurrently
with the execution of new transactions.
 Three Phase Commit (3PC)
 Assumptions:
 No network partitioning
 At any point, at least one site must be up.
 At most K sites (participants as well as coordinator) can fail
 Phase 1: Obtaining Preliminary Decision: Identical to 2PC Phase 1.
 Every site is ready to commit if instructed to do so
 Phase 2 of 2PC is split into 2 phases, Phase 2 and Phase 3 of 3PC
 In phase 2 coordinator makes a decision as in 2PC (called the pre-commit
decision) and records it in multiple (at least K) sites
 In phase 3, coordinator sends commit/abort message to all participating
sites,
 Under 3PC, knowledge of pre-commit decision can be used to commit despite
coordinator failure
 Avoids blocking problem as long as < K sites fail
 Drawbacks:
 higher overheads
 assumptions may not be satisfied in practice
Concurrency Control
 Concurrency Control
 Modify concurrency control schemes for use in distributed environment.
 We assume that each site participates in the execution of a commit
protocol to ensure global transaction automicity.
 We assume all replicas of any item are updated
 Will see how to relax this in case of site failures later
 Single-Lock-Manager Approach
 System maintains a single lock manager that resides in a single
chosen site, say Si
 When a transaction needs to lock a data item, it sends a lock request
to Si and lock manager determines whether the lock can be granted
immediately
 If yes, lock manager sends a message to the site which initiated
the request
 If no, request is delayed until it can be granted, at which time a
message is sent to the initiating site
 Single-Lock-Manager Approach (Cont.)
 The transaction can read the data item from any one of the sites at
which a replica of the data item resides.
 Writes must be performed on all replicas of a data item
 Advantages of scheme:
 Simple implementation
 Simple deadlock handling
 Disadvantages of scheme are:
 Bottleneck: lock manager site becomes a bottleneck
 Vulnerability: system is vulnerable to lock manager site failure.
 Distributed Lock Manager
 In this approach, functionality of locking is implemented by lock
managers at each site
 Lock managers control access to local data items
 But special protocols may be used for replicas
 Advantage: work is distributed and can be made robust to failures
 Disadvantage: deadlock detection is more complicated
 Lock managers cooperate for deadlock detection
 More on this later
 Several variants of this approach
 Primary copy
 Majority protocol
 Biased protocol
 Quorum consensus
 Primary Copy
 Choose one replica of data item to be the primary copy.
 Site containing the replica is called the primary site for that data
item
 Different data items can have different primary sites
 When a transaction needs to lock a data item Q, it requests a lock at
the primary site of Q.
 Implicitly gets lock on all replicas of the data item
 Benefit
 Concurrency control for replicated data handled similarly to
unreplicated data - simple implementation.
 Drawback
 If the primary site of Q fails, Q is inaccessible even though other
sites containing a replica may be accessible.
 Majority Protocol
 Local lock manager at each site administers lock and unlock requests
for data items stored at that site.
 When a transaction wishes to lock an unreplicated data item Q
residing at site Si, a message is sent to Si ‘s lock manager.
 If Q is locked in an incompatible mode, then the request is delayed
until it can be granted.
 When the lock request can be granted, the lock manager sends a
message back to the initiator indicating that the lock request has
been granted.
 Majority Protocol (Cont.)
 In case of replicated data
If Q is replicated at n sites, then a lock request message must be
sent to more than half of the n sites in which Q is stored.
 The transaction does not operate on Q until it has obtained a lock
on a majority of the replicas of Q.
 When writing the data item, transaction performs writes on all
replicas.
 Benefit
Can be used even when some sites are unavailable
 details on how handle writes in the presence of site failure later
 Drawback
 Requires 2(n/2 + 1) messages for handling lock requests, and (n/2
+ 1) messages for handling unlock requests.
 Potential for deadlock even with single item - e.g., each of 3
transactions may have locks on 1/3rd of the replicas of a data.
 Biased Protocol
 Local lock manager at each site as in majority protocol, however,
requests for shared locks are handled differently than requests for
exclusive locks.
 Shared locks. When a transaction needs to lock data item Q, it simply
requests a lock on Q from the lock manager at one site containing a
replica of Q.
 Exclusive locks. When transaction needs to lock data item Q, it
requests a lock on Q from the lock manager at all sites containing a
replica of Q.
 Advantage - imposes less overhead on read operations.
 Disadvantage - additional overhead on writes
Distributed Query Processing
 Distributed Query Processing
 For centralized systems, the primary criterion for measuring the cost
of a particular strategy is the number of disk accesses.
 In a distributed system, other issues must be taken into account:
 The cost of a data transmission over the network.
 The potential gain in performance from having several sites
process parts of the query in parallel.
 Query Transformation
 Translating algebraic queries on fragments.
 It must be possible to construct relation r from its fragments
 Replace relation r by the expression to construct relation r from its
fragments
 Consider the horizontal fragmentation of the account relation into
account1 =  branch_name = “Hillside” (account )
account2 =  branch_name = “Valleyview” (account )
 The query  branch_name = “Hillside” (account ) becomes
 branch_name = “Hillside” (account1  account2)
which is optimized into
 branch_name = “Hillside” (account1)   branch_name = “Hillside” (account2)
 Example Query (Cont.)
 Since account1 has only tuples pertaining to the Hillside branch,
we can eliminate the selection operation.
 Apply the definition of account2 to obtain
 branch_name = “Hillside” ( branch_name = “Valleyview” (account )

 This expression is the empty set regardless of the contents of the

account relation.
 Final strategy is for the Hillside site to return account1 as the result
of the query.
 Simple Join Processing
 Consider the following relational algebra expression in which the three
relations are neither replicated nor fragmented
account depositor branch
 account is stored at site S1
 depositor at S2
 branch at S3
 For a query issued at site SI, the system needs to produce the result at
site SI
 Possible Query Processing Strategies
 Ship copies of all three relations to site SI and choose a strategy for
processing the entire locally at site SI.
 Ship a copy of the account relation to site S2 and compute temp1 =
account depositor at S2. Ship temp1 from S2 to S3, and compute
temp2 = temp1 branch at S3. Ship the result temp2 to SI.
 Devise similar strategies, exchanging the roles S1, S2, S3
 Must consider following factors:
 amount of data being shipped
 cost of transmitting a data block between sites
 relative processing speed at each site
 Heterogeneous Distributed Databases
 Many database applications require data from a variety of preexisting
databases located in a heterogeneous collection of hardware and
software platforms
 Data models may differ (hierarchical, relational , etc.)
 Transaction commit protocols may be incompatible
 Concurrency control may be based on different techniques (locking,
timestamping, etc.)
 System-level details almost certainly are totally incompatible.
 A multidatabase system is a software layer on top of existing
database systems, which is designed to manipulate information in
heterogeneous databases
 Creates an illusion of logical database integration without any
physical database integration
 Query Processing
 Several issues in query processing in a heterogeneous database
 Schema translation
 Write a wrapper for each data source to translate data to a global
schema
 Wrappers must also translate updates on global schema to updates on
local schema
 Limited query capabilities
 Some data sources allow only restricted forms of selections
 E.g. web forms, flat file data sources
 Queries have to be broken up and processed partly at the source and
partly at a different site
 Removal of duplicate information when sites have overlapping information
 Decide which sites to execute query
 Global query optimization