skip to main content
10.1145/67544.66936acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

A comparison of high-availability media recovery techniques

Published:01 June 1989Publication History

ABSTRACT

We compare two high-availability techniques for recovery from media failures in database systems. Both techniques achieve high availability by having two copies of all data and indexes, so that recovery is immediate. “Mirrored declustering” spreads two copies of each relation across two identical sets of disks. “Interleaved declustering” spreads two copies of each relation across one set of disks while keeping both copies of each tuple on separate disks. Both techniques pay the same costs of doubling storage requirements and requiring updates to be applied to both copies.

Mirroring offers greater simplicity and universality. Recovery can be implemented at lower levels of the system software (e.g., the disk controller). For architectures that do not share disks globally, it allows global and local cluster indexes to be independent. Also, mirroring does not require data to be declustered (i.e., spread over multiple disks).

Interleaved declustering offers significant improvements in recovery time, mean time to loss of both copies of some data, throughput during normal operation, and response time during recovery. For all architectures, interleaved declustering enables data to be spread over twice as many disks for improved load balancing. We show how tuning for interleaved declustering is simplified because it is dependent only on a few parameters that are usually well known for a specific workload and system configuration.

References

  1. Ano85.Anon. et al, "A Measure of Transaction Processing Power," Datamation, Vol. 31.7, April 1 ( 985). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Att84.R. Attar, P. Bernstein and N. Goodman, "Site Initialization, Recovery And Backup In A Distributed Database System," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE--10, No. 6 (November 1984).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bit88.D. Bitton and J. Gray, "Disk Shadowing," Proceedings of VLDB, Los Angeles (August 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cop88.G. Copeland, W. Alexander, E. Boughter and T. Keller, "Data Placement In Bubba," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD (May 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. DeW86.D.J. DeWitt, R.H. Gerber, G. Graefe, M.H. Heytens, K.B Kumar and M. Muralikrishna, "GAMMA---A High Performance Dataflow Database Machine," Proceedings of VLDB, Japan (August 1986). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gra78.J.N. Gray, "Notes on Database Operating Systems," in Operating Systems: An Advanced Course, Springer-Verlag, New York (1978). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kat88.R. Katz, J. Ousterhout, D. Patterson and M. Stonebraker, "A Project On High Performance I/O Subsystems," Database Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 11, No. 1 (March 1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kat78.J.A. Katzman, "A Fauk-Tolerant Computing System," Proceedings of the Eleventh Hawaii Conference on System Sciences," (January 1978).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kle76.L. Kleinrock, Queuing Systems, Volume 1: Theory, and Queuing Systems, Volume 2: Computer Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 119-126 (1976).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Liv87.M. Livny, S. Khoshafian, H. Boral, "Multi-Disk Management Algorithms," ACM SIGMETRICS Conference (1987). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Par86.A. Park and K. Balasubramanian, "Providing Fault Tolerance In Parallel Secondary Storage Systems," Computer Science TR 057-86, Princeton University (November 1986).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Pat87.D.A. Patterson, G. Gibson and R.H. Katz, "A Case For Redundant Arrays Of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)," Report No. UCB/CSD 87/391, U.C. Berkeley Computer Science Division (December 1987) and Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD, Chicago (May 1988). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Sto86.M. Stonebreaker, "The Case For Shared Nothing," Database Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1986).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tan87.The Tandem Database Group, "NonStop SQL, A Distributed, High-Performance, High-Availability Implementation of SQL," Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on High Performance Transaction Systems, Asilomar, CA (September 1987). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ter85."DBC/1012 Data Base Computer System Manual, Release 1.3," C10-0001--01, Teradata Corp., Los Angeles (February 1985).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A comparison of high-availability media recovery techniques

                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
                  SIGMOD '89: Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data
                  June 1989
                  451 pages
                  ISBN:0897913175
                  DOI:10.1145/67544

                  Copyright © 1989 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: 1 June 1989

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • Article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader