CSE-813(Distributed and Cloud Computing)

Dr. Atiqur Rahman

ড. আতিকুর রহমান
Ph.D.(CQUPT, China), MS.Engg.(CU), B.Sc.(CU)
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of Chittagong

Lecture 10: RPCs and Concurrency Control

Why RPCs

• RPC = Remote Procedure Call

• Proposed by Birrell and Nelson in 1984
• Important abstraction for processes to call functions in other processes
• Allows code reuse
• Implemented and used in most distributed systems, including cloud
computing systems
• Counterpart in Object-based settings is called RMI (Remote Method
Invocation)
Local Procedure Call (LPC)

• Call from one function to another function within the same process
– Uses stack to pass arguments and return values
– Accesses objects via pointers (e.g., C) or by reference (e.g., Java)
• LPC has exactly-once semantics
– If process is alive, called function executed exactly once
 Remote Procedure Call

• Call from one function to another function, where caller and callee
function reside in different processes
– Function call crosses a process boundary
– Accesses procedures via global references
• Can’t use pointers across processes since a reference address in process P1 may point to a different object in
another process P2
• E.g., Procedure address = IP + port + procedure number

• Similarly, RMI (Remote Method Invocation) in Object-based settings

LPCs

P1 main() LPC

int f1()
int f2()
LPC
RPCs

P1 main() LPC

int f1()
int f2()
LPC

RPC
P2
int f2()
RPCs

P1 main() LPC Host A

int f1()
int f2()
LPC

RPC
P2
int f2()
RPCs

P1 main() LPC Host A

int f1()
int f2()
LPC

RPC reply message RPC request message

P2 Host B
int f2()
RPC Call Semantics

• Under failures, hard to guarantee exactly-once semantics

• Function may not be executed if
– Request (call) message is dropped
– Reply (return) message is dropped
– Called process fails before executing called function
– Called process fails after executing called function
– Hard for caller to distinguish these cases
• Function may be executed multiple times if
– Request (call) message is duplicated
Implementing RPC Call Semantics

• Possible semantics
– At most once semantics (e.g., Java RMI)
– At least once semantics (e.g., Sun RPC)
– Maybe, i.e., best-effort (e.g., CORBA) (Common Object Request Brokerage Architecture)
 Implementing RPCs

int caller()

Client stub

P1 Communication module
(“client”)
Communication module

Dispatcher

Server stub
P2
int callee()
(“server”)
 RPC Components

int caller()
Client
•Client stub: has same function signature as callee()
Client stub
– Allows same caller() code to be used for LPC and RPC
P1 Communication module
•Communication Module: Forwards requests and
replies to appropriate hosts
(“client”)
Server
Communication module
•Dispatcher: Selects which server stub to forward
request to
Dispatcher
•Server stub: calls callee(), allows it to return a value
Server stub
P2
int callee()
(“server”)
Generating Code

• Programmer only writes code for caller function and callee function
• Code for remaining components all generated automatically from function
signatures (or object interfaces in Object-based languages)
– E.g., Sun RPC system: Sun XDR interface representation fed into rpcgen compiler
• These components together part of a Middleware system
– E.g., CORBA (Common Object Request Brokerage Architecture)
– E.g., Sun RPC
– E.g., Java RMI
 Marshalling

• Different architectures use different ways of representing data

– Big endian: Hex 12-AC-33 stored with 12 in lowest address, then AC in next higher address, then 33 in
highest address
• IBM z, System 360
– Little endian: Hex 12-AC-33 stored with 33 in lowest address, then AC in next higher address, then 12
• Intel

• Caller (and callee) process uses its own platform-dependent way of storing data
• Middleware has a common data representation (CDR)
– Platform-independent
Marshalling (2)

• Middleware has a common data representation (CDR)

– Platform-independent
• Caller process converts arguments into CDR format
– Called “Marshalling”
• Callee process extracts arguments from message into its own platform-dependent format
– Called “Unmarshalling”
• Return values are marshalled on callee process and unmarshalled at caller process
Next

• Now that we know RPCs, we can use them as a building block to understand transactions
Transaction

• Series of operations executed by client

• Each operation is an RPC to a server
• Transaction either
– completes and commits all its operations at server
• Commit = reflect updates on server-side objects
– Or aborts and has no effect on server
 Example: Transaction

Client code:
int transaction_id = openTransaction();
x = server.getFlightAvailability(ABC, 123, date);
if (x > 0)
y = server.bookTicket(ABC, 123, date);
RPCs
server.putSeat(y, “aisle”);
// commit entire transaction or abort
closeTransaction(transaction_id);
 Example: Transaction

Client code:
int transaction_id = openTransaction();
x = server.getFlightAvailability(ABC, 123, // read(ABC, 123, date)
date);
if (x > 0) // write(ABC, 123, date)
RPCs y = server.bookTicket(ABC, 123, date); // write(ABC, 123, date)
server.putSeat(y, “aisle”);
// commit entire transaction or abort
closeTransaction(transaction_id);
Atomicity and Isolation

• Atomicity: All or nothing principle: a transaction should either i) complete successfully, so its effects
are recorded in the server objects; or ii) the transaction has no effect at all.
• Isolation: Need a transaction to be indivisible (atomic) from the point of view of other transactions
– No access to intermediate results/states of other transactions
– Free from interference by operations of other transactions
• But…
• Clients and/or servers might crash
• Transactions could run concurrently, i.e., with multiple clients
• Transactions may be distributed, i.e., across multiple servers
ACID Properties for Transactions

• Atomicity: All or nothing

• Consistency: if the server starts in a consistent state, the transaction ends the server in
a consistent state.
• Isolation: Each transaction must be performed without interference from other
transactions, i.e., non-final effects of a transaction must not be visible to other
transactions.
• Durability: After a transaction has completed successfully, all its effects are saved in
permanent storage.
Multiple Clients, One Server

• What could go wrong?

1. Lost Update Problem
At Server: seats = 10
Transaction T1 Transaction T2
x = getSeats(ABC123);
x = getSeats(ABC123); T1’s or T2’s update was lost!
// x = 10
if(x > 1) if(x > 1)
// x = 10
x = x – 1;
write(x, ABC123);
x = x – 1; seats = 9
write(x, ABC123);
commit
commit seats = 9
2. Inconsistent Retrieval Problem
At Server:
Transaction T1 Transaction T2 ABC123 = 10
x = getSeats(ABC123); ABC789 = 15

y = getSeats(ABC789); T2’s sum is the wrong value!

write(x-5, ABC123); Should have been “Total: 25”
x = getSeats(ABC123);
// ABC123 = 5 now y = getSeats(ABC789);
write(y+5, ABC789);
print(“Total:” x+y);
// x = 5, y = 15
commit
commit
// Prints “Total: 20”
Next

• How to prevent transactions from affecting each other

Concurrent Transactions

• To prevent transactions from affecting each other

– Could execute them one at a time at server
– But reduces number of concurrent transactions
– Transactions per second directly related to revenue of companies
• This metric needs to be maximized
• Goal: increase concurrency while maintaining correctness (ACID)
Serial Equivalence
• An interleaving (say O) of transaction operations is serially equivalent iff (if
and only if):
– There is some ordering (O’) of those transactions, one at a time, which
– Gives the same end-result (for all objects and transactions) as the original
interleaving O
– Where the operations of each transaction occur consecutively (in a batch)
• Says: Cannot distinguish end-result of real operation O from (fake) serial
transaction order O’
Checking for Serial Equivalence

• An operation has an effect on

– The server object if it is a write
– The client (returned value) if it is a read
• Two operations are said to be conflicting operations, if their combined effect depends
on the order they are executed
– read(x) and write(x)
– write(x) and read(x)
– write(x) and write(x)
– NOT read(x) and read(x): swapping them doesn’t change their effects
– NOT read/write(x) and read/write(y): swapping them ok
Checking for Serial Equivalence (2)

• Two transactions are serially equivalent if and only if all pairs of conflicting
operations (pair containing one operation from each transaction) are
executed in the same order (transaction order) for all objects (data) they both
access.
– Take all pairs of conflict operations, one from T1 and one from T2
– If the T1 operation was reflected first on the server, mark the pair as “(T1, T2)”, otherwise
mark it as “(T2, T1)”
– All pairs should be marked as either “(T1, T2)” or all pairs should be marked as “(T2, T1)”.
1. Lost Update Problem – Caught!
At Server: seats = 10
Transaction T1 Transaction T2
x = getSeats(ABC123);
x = getSeats(ABC123); T1’s or T2’s update was lost!
// x = 10
if(x > 1) if(x > 1)
(T2, T1) // x = 10
x = x – 1;
write(x, ABC123);
(T1, T2) seats = 9
x = x – 1;
write(x, ABC123);
commit (T1, T2)
commit seats = 9
2. Inconsistent Retrieval Problem – Caught!

At Server:
Transaction T1 Transaction T2 ABC123 = 10
x = getSeats(ABC123); ABC789 = 15

y = getSeats(ABC789); T2’s sum is the wrong value!

write(x-5, ABC123); Should have been “Total: 25”
x(T1, T2)
= getSeats(ABC123);
y = getSeats(ABC789);
write(y+5, ABC789);
print(“Total:”
(T2, T1) x+y);
// x = 5, y = 15
commit
commit
// Prints “Total: 20”
What’s Our Response?

• At commit point of a transaction T, check for serial equivalence with all other
transactions
– Can limit to transactions that overlapped in time with T
• If not serially equivalent
– Abort T
– Roll back (undo) any writes that T did to server objects
Can We do better?

• Aborting => wasted work

• Can you prevent violations from occurring?
Two Approaches

• Preventing isolation from being violated can be done in two

ways
1. Pessimistic concurrency control
2. Optimistic concurrency control
Pessimistic vs. Optimistic

• Pessimistic: assume the worst, prevent transactions from

accessing the same object
– E.g., Locking
• Optimistic: assume the best, allow transactions to write, but
check later
– E.g., Check at commit time, multi-version approaches
Pessimistic: Exclusive Locking
• Each object has a lock
• At most one transaction can be inside lock
• Before reading or writing object O, transaction T must call lock(O)
– Blocks if another transaction already inside lock
• After entering lock T can read and write O multiple times
• When done (or at commit point), T calls unlock(O)
– If other transactions waiting at lock(O), allows one of them in
• Sound familiar? (This is Mutual Exclusion!)
Can we improve concurrency?

• More concurrency => more transactions per second => more revenue ($$$)
• Real-life workloads have a lot of read-only or read-mostly transactions
– Exclusive locking reduces concurrency
– Hint: Ok to allow two transactions to concurrently read an object, since read-read
is not a conflicting pair
Another Approach: Read-Write Locks

• Each object has a lock that can be held in one of two modes
– Read mode: multiple transactions allowed in
– Write mode: exclusive lock
• Before first reading O, transaction T calls read_lock(O)
– T allowed in only if all transactions inside lock for O all entered via read mode
– Not allowed if any transaction inside lock for O entered via write mode
Read-Write Locks (2)

• Before first writing O, call write_lock(O)

– Allowed in only if no other transaction inside lock
• If T already holds read_lock(O), and wants to write, call write_lock(O) to
promote lock from read to write mode
– Succeeds only if no other transactions in write mode or read mode
– Otherwise, T blocks
• Unlock(O) called by transaction T releases any lock on O by T
Guaranteeing Serial Equivalence With Locks

• Two-phase locking
– A transaction cannot acquire (or promote) any locks after it has started
releasing locks
– Transaction has two phases
1. Growing phase: only acquires or promotes locks
2. Shrinking phase: only releases locks
– Strict two phase locking: releases locks only at commit point
Why Two-phase Locking => Serial Equivalence?

• Proof by contradiction
• Assume two phase locking system where serial equivalence is violated for some two
transactions T1, T2
• Two facts must then be true:
– (A) For some object O1, there were conflicting operations in T1 and T2 such that the time ordering pair is (T1,
T2)
– (B) For some object O2, the conflicting operation pair is (T2, T1)
• (A) => T1 released O1’s lock and T2 acquired it after that
=> T1’s shrinking phase is before or overlaps with T2’s growing phase
• Similarly, (B) => T2’s shrinking phase is before or overlaps with T1’s growing phase
• But both these cannot be true!
Downside of Locking

• Deadlocks!
Downside of Locking – Deadlocks!

Transaction T1 Transaction T2 T1
Lock(ABC123);
Wait for
Lock(ABC789); Wait for

x = write(10, ABC123);
Lock(ABC789); T2
// Blocks waiting for T2 y = write(15, ABC789);
Lock(ABC123);
… … // Blocks waiting for T1
When do Deadlocks Occur?

• 3 necessary conditions for a deadlock to occur

1. Some objects are accessed in exclusive lock modes
2. Transactions holding locks cannot be preempted
3. There is a circular wait (cycle) in the Wait-for graph
• “Necessary” = if there’s a deadlock, these conditions are all definitely true
• (Conditions not sufficient: if they’re present, it doesn’t imply a deadlock is
present.)
Combating Deadlocks

1. Lock timeout: abort transaction if lock cannot be acquired within timeout

 Expensive; leads to wasted work
2. Deadlock Detection:
–keep track of Wait-for graph (e.g., via Global Snapshot algorithm), and
–find cycles in it (e.g., periodically)
–If find cycle, there’s a deadlock => Abort one or more transactions to break cycle
 Still allows deadlocks to occur
Combating Deadlocks (2)

3. Deadlock Prevention
•Set up the system so one of the necessary conditions is violated
1. Some objects are accessed in exclusive lock modes
• Fix: Allow read-only access to objects
2. Transactions holding locks cannot be preempted
• Fix: Allow preemption of some transactions
3. There is a circular wait (cycle) in the Wait-for graph
• Fix: Lock all objects in the beginning; if fail any, abort transaction => No cycles in Wait-for graph
Next

• Can we allow more concurrency?

• Optimistic Concurrency Control
Optimistic Concurrency Control

• Increases concurrency more than pessimistic concurrency control

• Increases transactions per second
• For non-transaction systems, increases operations per second and lowers
latency
• Used in Dropbox, Google apps, Wikipedia, key-value stores like Cassandra,
Riak, and Amazon’s Dynamo
• Preferable than pessimistic when conflicts are expected to be rare
– But still need to ensure conflicts are caught!
First-cut Approach

• Most basic approach

– Write and read objects at will
– Check for serial equivalence at commit time
– If abort, roll back updates made
– An abort may result in other transactions that read dirty data, also being
aborted
• Any transactions that read from those transactions also now need to be aborted
 Cascading aborts
Second approach: Timestamp Ordering

• Assign each transaction an id

• Transaction id determines its position in serialization order
• Ensure that for a transaction T, both are true:
1. T’s write to object O allowed only if transactions that have read or written O had lower
ids than T.
2. T’s read to object O is allowed only if O was last written by a transaction with a lower id
than T.
• Implemented by maintaining read and write timestamps for the object
• If rule violated, abort!
– Can we do better?
Third Approach: Multi-version Concurrency Control

• For each object

– A per-transaction version of the object is maintained
• Marked as tentative versions
– And a committed version
• Each tentative version has a timestamp
– Some systems maintain both a read timestamp and a write timestamp
• On a read or write, find the “correct” tentative version to read or write from
– “Correct” based on transaction id, and tries to make transactions only read from “immediately
previous” transactions
Eventual Consistency…

• …that you’ll see in key-value stores…

• … is a form of optimistic concurrency control
– In Cassandra key-value store
– In DynamoDB key-value store
– In Riak key-value store
• But since non-transaction systems, the optimistic approach looks different
Eventual Consistency in Cassandra and DynamoDB

• Only one version of each data item (key-value pair)

• Last-write-wins (LWW)
– Timestamp, typically based on physical time, used to determine whether to overwrite
if(new write’s timestamp > current object’s timestamp)
overwrite;
else
do nothing;
• With unsynchronized clocks
– If two writes are close by in time, older write might have a newer timestamp, and might win
Eventual Consistency in Riak Key-value Store

• Uses vector clocks! (Should sound familiar to you!)

• Implements causal ordering
• Uses vector clocks to detect whether
1. New write is strictly newer than current value, or
2. If new write conflicts with existing value
• In case (2), a sibling value is created
– Resolvable by user, or automatically by application (but not by Riak)
• To prevent vector clocks from getting too many entries
– Size-based pruning
• To prevent vector clocks from having entries updated a long-time ago
– Time-based pruning
Summary

• RPCs and RMIs

• Transactions
• Serial Equivalence
– Detecting it via conflicting operations
• Pessimistic Concurrency Control: locking
• Optimistic Concurrency Control