DOCSLIB.ORG

Atomic Commitment Across Blockchains

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Atomic Commitment Across Blockchains Atomic Commitment Across Blockchains Victor Zakhary Divyakant Agrawal Amr El Abbadi UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California Santa Barbara, California Santa Barbara, California USA, 93106 USA, 93106 USA, 93106 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT developing protocols and infrastructures that support peer- to-peer atomic cross-chain transactions. Users, who usu- The recent adoption of blockchain technologies and open ally do not trust each other, should be able to directly ex- permissionless networks suggest the importance of peer-to- change their tokens and assets that are stored on different peer atomic cross-chain transaction protocols. Users should blockchains (e.g., Bitcoin and Ethereum) without depend- be able to atomically exchange tokens and assets without ing on trusted third party intermediaries. Decentralized per- depending on centralized intermediaries such as exchanges. missionless [20] blockchain ecosystems require infrastructure Recent peer-to-peer atomic cross-chain swap protocols use enablers and protocols that allow users to atomically ex- hashlocks and timelocks to ensure that participants com- change tokens without giving up trust-free decentralization, ply to the protocol. However, an expired timelock could the main reasons behind using permissionless blockchains. lead to a violation of the all-or-nothing atomicity property. We motivate the problem of atomic cross-chain transactions An honest participant who fails to execute a smart contract and discuss the current available solutions and their limita- on time due to a crash failure, denial of service attacks or tions through the following example. even network delays might end up losing assets. Although a crashed participant is the only participant who ends up Suppose Alice owns X bitcoins and she wants to exchange worse off, current proposals are unsuitable for atomic cross- them for Y ethers. Luckily, Bob owns ether and he is will- chain transactions in asynchronous environments where ing to exchange his Y ethers for X bitcoins. to atomi- crash failures and network delays are the norm. In this cally exchange assets that reside in different blockchains. paper, we present AC3WN, the first decentralized all-or- In addition, both Alice and Bob do not trust each other nothing atomic cross-chain commitment protocol. The re- and in many scenarios, they might not be co-located to do deem and refund events of the smart contracts that exchange this atomic exchange in person. Current infrastructures do assets are modeled as conflicting events. An open permis- not support these direct peer-to-peer transactions. Instead, sionless network of witnesses is used to guarantee that con- both Alice and Bob need to independently exchange their flicting events could never simultaneously occur and either tokens through a trusted centralized exchange, Trent (e.g., all smart contracts in an atomic cross-chain transaction are Coinbase [3] and Robinhood [4]) either through fiat currency redeemed or all of them are refunded. or directly. Using Fiat, both Alice and Bob first exchange their tokens with Trent for a fiat currency (e.g., USD) and PVLDB Reference Format: then use the earned fiat currency to buy the other token also from Trent or from another trusted exchange. Alternatively, Victor Zakhary, Divyakant Agrawal, Amr El Abbadi. Atomic Commitment Across Blockchains. PVLDB, 13(9): 1319 - 1331, some exchanges (e.g., Coinbase) allow their customers to di- 2020. rectly exchange tokens (e.g., ether for bitcoin or bitcoin for DOI: https://doi.org/10.14778/3397230.3397231 ether) without going through fiat currencies. These solutions have many drawbacks that make them unacceptable solutions for peer-to-peer atomic cross-chain 1 Introduction transactions. First, they require both Alice and Bob to trust Trent. This centralized trust requirement risks to derail the The wide adoption of permissionless open blockchain net- whole idea of blockchain's trust-free decentralization [22]. works by both industry (e.g., Bitcoin [22], Ethereum [28], Second, they require Trent to trade in all involved resources etc) and academia (e.g., Bzycoin [18], Elastico [19], Bit- (e.g., bitcoin and ether). This requirement is unrealistic coinNG [11], Algorand [21], etc.) suggests the importance of especially if Alice and Bob want to exchange commodity re- sources (e.g., transfer a car ownership for bitcoin assuming This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- car titles are stored in a blockchain [16]). Third, these solu- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy tions do not ensure the atomic execution of the transaction of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. For among the involved participants. Alice might trade her bit- any use beyond those covered by this license, obtain permission by emailing coin directly for ether or through a fiat currency while Bob [email protected]. Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights has no obligation to execute his part of the swap. Finally, licensed to the VLDB Endowment. these solutions significantly increase the number of required Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 13, No. 9 ISSN 2150-8097. transactions to achieve the intended cross-chain transaction, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14778/3397230.3397231 and hence drastically increases the imposed fees. One cross- 1319 chain transaction between Alice and Bob results in either The case against the current proposals: If Bob fails four transactions (two between Alice and Trent and two be- to provide s to SC1 before t1 expires due to a crash fail- tween Bob and Trent) if fiat is used or at best two trans- ure, a network partitioning, or a network denial of service actions (one between Alice and Trent and one between Bob at Bob's site, Bob loses his X bitcoins and SC1 refunds the and Trent) if assets are directly swapped. X bitcoins to Alice. This violation of the atomicity prop- An Atomic Cross-Chain Transaction, AC2T, is a dis- erty of the protocol penalizes Bob for a failure that happens tributed transaction that spans multiple blockchains. This out of his control. Although a crashed participant is the distributed transaction consists of sub-transactions and each only participant who ends up being worse off (Bob in this sub-transaction is executed on a blockchain. An Atomic example), this protocol does not guarantee the atomicity of Cross-Chain Commitment, AC3, protocol is required to ex- AC2Ts in asynchronous environments where crash failures, ecute AC2Ts. This protocol is a variation of traditional dis- network partitioning, and message delays are the norm. tributed atomic commitment protocols (e.g., 2PC [8, 14]). Another important drawback in Nolan's and Herlihy's This protocol should guarantee both atomicity and commit- protocols is the requirement to sequentially publish the ment of AC2Ts. Atomicity ensures the all-or-nothing smart contracts in an atomic swap before the leader (Alice in property where either all sub-transactions take place or none our example) reveals the secret s. This requirement is nec- of them do. Commitment guarantees that any changes essary to ensure that the publishing events of all the smart caused by a cross-chain transaction must eventually take contracts in the atomic swap happen before the redemption place if the transaction is decided to commit. Unlike in of any of the smart contracts. This causality requirement 2PC and other traditional distributed atomic commitment ensures that any malicious participant who declines to pub- protocols, atomic cross-chain commitment protocols are also lish their payment smart contract cannot take advantage of trust-free and therefore must tolerate maliciousness [16]. the protocol. However, the sequential publishing of smart A two-party atomic cross-chain commitment protocol was contracts, especially in atomic swaps that include many par- originally proposed by Nolan [1,23] and generalized by Her- ticipants, proportionally increases the latency of the swap to lihy [16] to process multi-party atomic cross-chain transac- the number of sequentially published contracts. tions, or swaps. Both Nolan's protocol and its generalization In this paper, we propose AC3WN, the first decentralized by Herlihy use smart contracts, hashlocks, and timelocks to all-or-nothing Atomic Cross-Chain Commitment protocol execute atomic cross-chain transactions. A smart contract is that uses an open Witness Network to coordinate AC2T s. a self executing contract (or a program) that gets executed The redemption and the refund events of smart contracts in a blockchain once all the terms of the contract are satis- in AC2T are modeled as conflicting events. A decentral- fied. A hashlock is a cryptographic one-way hash function ized open network of witnesses is used to guarantee that h = H(s) that locks assets in a smart contract until a hash conflicting events must never simultaneously take place and secret s is provided. A timelock is a time bounded lock that either all smart contracts in an AC2T are redeemed or all of triggers the execution of a smart contract function after a them are refunded. Unlike in Nolan's and Herlihy's proto- pre-specified time period. cols, AC3WN allows all participants to concurrently publish The atomic swap between Alice and Bob, explained in their contracts in a swap resulting in a drastic decrease in the earlier example, is executed using Nolan's protocol as the latency of atomic swaps. Our contributions are summa- follows. Let a participant be the leader of the swap, say rized as follows: Alice. Alice creates a secret s, only known to Alice, and a hashlock h = H(s). Alice uses h to lock X bitcoins in a smart • We present AC3WN, the first all-or-nothing atomic 3 contract SC1 and publishes SC1 in the Bitcoin network. cross-chain commitment protocol. AC WN is decen- SC1 transfers X bitcoins to Bob if Bob provides the secret tralized and its correctness does not depend on any s to SC1 where h = H(s).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Not ACID, Not BASE, but SALT a Transaction Processing Perspective on Blockchains
    Not ACID, not BASE, but SALT A Transaction Processing Perspective on Blockchains Stefan Tai, Jacob Eberhardt and Markus Klems Information Systems Engineering, Technische Universitat¨ Berlin fst, je, [email protected] Keywords: SALT, blockchain, decentralized, ACID, BASE, transaction processing Abstract: Traditional ACID transactions, typically supported by relational database management systems, emphasize database consistency. BASE provides a model that trades some consistency for availability, and is typically favored by cloud systems and NoSQL data stores. With the increasing popularity of blockchain technology, another alternative to both ACID and BASE is introduced: SALT. In this keynote paper, we present SALT as a model to explain blockchains and their use in application architecture. We take both, a transaction and a transaction processing systems perspective on the SALT model. From a transactions perspective, SALT is about Sequential, Agreed-on, Ledgered, and Tamper-resistant transaction processing. From a systems perspec- tive, SALT is about decentralized transaction processing systems being Symmetric, Admin-free, Ledgered and Time-consensual. We discuss the importance of these dual perspectives, both, when comparing SALT with ACID and BASE, and when engineering blockchain-based applications. We expect the next-generation of decentralized transactional applications to leverage combinations of all three transaction models. 1 INTRODUCTION against. Using the admittedly contrived acronym of SALT, we characterize blockchain-based transactions There is a common belief that blockchains have the – from a transactions perspective – as Sequential, potential to fundamentally disrupt entire industries. Agreed, Ledgered, and Tamper-resistant, and – from Whether we are talking about financial services, the a systems perspective – as Symmetric, Admin-free, sharing economy, the Internet of Things, or future en- Ledgered, and Time-consensual.
    [Show full text]
  • Failures in DBMS
    Chapter 11 Database Recovery 1 Failures in DBMS Two common kinds of failures StSystem filfailure (t)(e.g. power outage) ‒ affects all transactions currently in progress but does not physically damage the data (soft crash) Media failures (e.g. Head crash on the disk) ‒ damagg()e to the database (hard crash) ‒ need backup data Recoveryyp scheme responsible for handling failures and restoring database to consistent state 2 Recovery Recovering the database itself Recovery algorithm has two parts ‒ Actions taken during normal operation to ensure system can recover from failure (e.g., backup, log file) ‒ Actions taken after a failure to restore database to consistent state We will discuss (briefly) ‒ Transactions/Transaction recovery ‒ System Recovery 3 Transactions A database is updated by processing transactions that result in changes to one or more records. A user’s program may carry out many operations on the data retrieved from the database, but the DBMS is only concerned with data read/written from/to the database. The DBMS’s abstract view of a user program is a sequence of transactions (reads and writes). To understand database recovery, we must first understand the concept of transaction integrity. 4 Transactions A transaction is considered a logical unit of work ‒ START Statement: BEGIN TRANSACTION ‒ END Statement: COMMIT ‒ Execution errors: ROLLBACK Assume we want to transfer $100 from one bank (A) account to another (B): UPDATE Account_A SET Balance= Balance -100; UPDATE Account_B SET Balance= Balance +100; We want these two operations to appear as a single atomic action 5 Transactions We want these two operations to appear as a single atomic action ‒ To avoid inconsistent states of the database in-between the two updates ‒ And obviously we cannot allow the first UPDATE to be executed and the second not or vice versa.
    [Show full text]
  • SQL Vs Nosql: a Performance Comparison
    SQL vs NoSQL: A Performance Comparison Ruihan Wang Zongyan Yang University of Rochester University of Rochester [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 2. ACID Properties and CAP Theorem We always hear some statements like ‘SQL is outdated’, 2.1. ACID Properties ‘This is the world of NoSQL’, ‘SQL is still used a lot by We need to refer the ACID properties[12]: most of companies.’ Which one is accurate? Has NoSQL completely replace SQL? Or is NoSQL just a hype? SQL Atomicity (Structured Query Language) is a standard query language A transaction is an atomic unit of processing; it should for relational database management system. The most popu- either be performed in its entirety or not performed at lar types of RDBMS(Relational Database Management Sys- all. tems) like Oracle, MySQL, SQL Server, uses SQL as their Consistency preservation standard database query language.[3] NoSQL means Not A transaction should be consistency preserving, meaning Only SQL, which is a collection of non-relational data stor- that if it is completely executed from beginning to end age systems. The important character of NoSQL is that it re- without interference from other transactions, it should laxes one or more of the ACID properties for a better perfor- take the database from one consistent state to another. mance in desired fields. Some of the NOSQL databases most Isolation companies using are Cassandra, CouchDB, Hadoop Hbase, A transaction should appear as though it is being exe- MongoDB. In this paper, we’ll outline the general differences cuted in iso- lation from other transactions, even though between the SQL and NoSQL, discuss if Relational Database many transactions are execut- ing concurrently.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G Acid Dissociation Constants
    harxxxxx_App-G.qxd 3/8/10 1:34 PM Page AP11 APPENDIX G Acid Dissociation Constants §␮ ϭ 0.1 M 0 ؍ (Ionic strength (␮ † ‡ † Name Structure* pKa Ka pKa ϫ Ϫ5 Acetic acid CH3CO2H 4.756 1.75 10 4.56 (ethanoic acid) N ϩ H3 ϫ Ϫ3 Alanine CHCH3 2.344 (CO2H) 4.53 10 2.33 ϫ Ϫ10 9.868 (NH3) 1.36 10 9.71 CO2H ϩ Ϫ5 Aminobenzene NH3 4.601 2.51 ϫ 10 4.64 (aniline) ϪO SNϩ Ϫ4 4-Aminobenzenesulfonic acid 3 H3 3.232 5.86 ϫ 10 3.01 (sulfanilic acid) ϩ NH3 ϫ Ϫ3 2-Aminobenzoic acid 2.08 (CO2H) 8.3 10 2.01 ϫ Ϫ5 (anthranilic acid) 4.96 (NH3) 1.10 10 4.78 CO2H ϩ 2-Aminoethanethiol HSCH2CH2NH3 —— 8.21 (SH) (2-mercaptoethylamine) —— 10.73 (NH3) ϩ ϫ Ϫ10 2-Aminoethanol HOCH2CH2NH3 9.498 3.18 10 9.52 (ethanolamine) O H ϫ Ϫ5 4.70 (NH3) (20°) 2.0 10 4.74 2-Aminophenol Ϫ 9.97 (OH) (20°) 1.05 ϫ 10 10 9.87 ϩ NH3 ϩ ϫ Ϫ10 Ammonia NH4 9.245 5.69 10 9.26 N ϩ H3 N ϩ H2 ϫ Ϫ2 1.823 (CO2H) 1.50 10 2.03 CHCH CH CH NHC ϫ Ϫ9 Arginine 2 2 2 8.991 (NH3) 1.02 10 9.00 NH —— (NH2) —— (12.1) CO2H 2 O Ϫ 2.24 5.8 ϫ 10 3 2.15 Ϫ Arsenic acid HO As OH 6.96 1.10 ϫ 10 7 6.65 Ϫ (hydrogen arsenate) (11.50) 3.2 ϫ 10 12 (11.18) OH ϫ Ϫ10 Arsenious acid As(OH)3 9.29 5.1 10 9.14 (hydrogen arsenite) N ϩ O H3 Asparagine CHCH2CNH2 —— —— 2.16 (CO2H) —— —— 8.73 (NH3) CO2H *Each acid is written in its protonated form.
    [Show full text]
  • Drugs and Acid Dissociation Constants Ionisation of Drug Molecules Most Drugs Ionise in Aqueous Solution.1 They Are Weak Acids Or Weak Bases
    Drugs and acid dissociation constants Ionisation of drug molecules Most drugs ionise in aqueous solution.1 They are weak acids or weak bases. Those that are weak acids ionise in water to give acidic solutions while those that are weak bases ionise to give basic solutions. Drug molecules that are weak acids Drug molecules that are weak bases where, HA = acid (the drug molecule) where, B = base (the drug molecule) H2O = base H2O = acid A− = conjugate base (the drug anion) OH− = conjugate base (the drug anion) + + H3O = conjugate acid BH = conjugate acid Acid dissociation constant, Ka For a drug molecule that is a weak acid The equilibrium constant for this ionisation is given by the equation + − where [H3O ], [A ], [HA] and [H2O] are the concentrations at equilibrium. In a dilute solution the concentration of water is to all intents and purposes constant. So the equation is simplified to: where Ka is the acid dissociation constant for the weak acid + + Also, H3O is often written simply as H and the equation for Ka is usually written as: Values for Ka are extremely small and, therefore, pKa values are given (similar to the reason pH is used rather than [H+]. The relationship between pKa and pH is given by the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation: or This relationship is important when determining pKa values from pH measurements. Base dissociation constant, Kb For a drug molecule that is a weak base: 1 Ionisation of drug molecules. 1 Following the same logic as for deriving Ka, base dissociation constant, Kb, is given by: and Ionisation of water Water ionises very slightly.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Distributed Transactions Distributed Transaction Distributed Database Systems ACID Properties Global Atomicity Atom
    Distributed Transaction • A distributed transaction accesses resource managers distributed across a network Implementing Distributed • When resource managers are DBMSs we refer to the Transactions system as a distributed database system Chapter 24 DBMS at Site 1 Application Program DBMS 1 at Site 2 2 Distributed Database Systems ACID Properties • Each local DBMS might export • Each local DBMS – stored procedures, or – supports ACID properties locally for each subtransaction – an SQL interface. • Just like any other transaction that executes there • In either case, operations at each site are grouped – eliminates local deadlocks together as a subtransaction and the site is referred • The additional issues are: to as a cohort of the distributed transaction – Global atomicity: all cohorts must abort or all commit – Each subtransaction is treated as a transaction at its site – Global deadlocks: there must be no deadlocks involving • Coordinator module (part of TP monitor) supports multiple sites ACID properties of distributed transaction – Global serialization: distributed transaction must be globally serializable – Transaction manager acts as coordinator 3 4 Atomic Commit Protocol Global Atomicity Transaction (3) xa_reg • All subtransactions of a distributed transaction Manager Resource must commit or all must abort (coordinator) Manager (1) tx_begin (cohort) • An atomic commit protocol, initiated by a (4) tx_commit (5) atomic coordinator (e.g., the transaction manager), commit protocol ensures this. (3) xa_reg Resource Application – Coordinator
    [Show full text]
  • Write-Ahead Logging (WAL) Protocol
    CSC 261/461 – Database Systems Lecture 23 Fall 2017 CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR Announcements • Project 3 Due on: 12/01 • Poster: – Will be viewed by the whole department – Even, you may present it later – So, make sure, there is no typo and no embarrassing error. – Go through the poster multiple times – Strongly recommended: • Send us a copy by Sunday. We will try to give you quick feedback. • You can send the poster for printing on Tuesday CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR Today’s Lecture 1. Transactions 2. Properties of Transactions: ACID 3. Logging CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR TRANSACTIONS CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR Transactions: Basic Definition A transaction (“TXN”) is a sequence In the real world, a TXN of one or more operations (reads or either happened writes) which reflects a single real- completely or not at all world transition. START TRANSACTION UPDATE Product SET Price = Price – 1.99 WHERE pname = ‘Gizmo’ COMMIT CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR Transactions: Basic Definition A transaction (“TXN”) is a sequence of one or In the real world, a TXN more operations (reads or writes) which either happened reflects a single real-world transition. completely or not at all Examples: • Transfer money between accounts • Purchase a group of products • Register for a class (either waitlist or allocated) CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR Transactions in SQL • In “ad-hoc” SQL: – Default: each statement = one transaction • In a program, multiple statements can be grouped together as a transaction: START TRANSACTION UPDATE Bank SET amount = amount – 100 WHERE name = ‘Bob’ UPDATE Bank SET amount = amount + 100 WHERE name = ‘Joe’ COMMIT CSC 261, Fall 2017, UR Motivation for Transactions Grouping user actions (reads & writes) into transactions helps with two goals: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Phosphoric Acid
    Common Name: PHOSPHORIC ACID CAS Number: 7664-38-2 RTK Substance number: 1516 DOT Number: UN 1805 Date: May 1997 Revision: April 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HAZARD SUMMARY WORKPLACE EXPOSURE LIMITS * Phosphoric Acid can affect you when breathed in. OSHA: The legal airborne permissible exposure limit * Phosphoric Acid is a CORROSIVE CHEMICAL and (PEL) is 1 mg/m3 averaged over an 8-hour contact can irritate and burn the eyes. workshift. * Breathing Phosphoric Acid can irritate the nose, throat and lungs causing coughing and wheezing. NIOSH: The recommended airborne exposure limit is * Long-term exposure to the liquid may cause drying and 1 mg/m3 averaged over a 10-hour workshift and cracking of the skin. 3 mg/m3, not to be exceeded during any 15 minute work period. IDENTIFICATION Phosphoric Acid is a colorless, odorless solid or a thick, clear ACGIH: The recommended airborne exposure limit is 1 mg/m3 averaged over an 8-hour workshift and liquid. It is used in rustproofing metals, fertilizers, detergents, 3 foods, beverages, and water treatment. 3 mg/m as a STEL (short term exposure limit). REASON FOR CITATION WAYS OF REDUCING EXPOSURE * Phosphoric Acid is on the Hazardous Substance List * Where possible, enclose operations and use local exhaust because it is regulated by OSHA and cited by ACGIH, ventilation at the site of chemical release. If local exhaust DOT, NIOSH, IRIS, NFPA and EPA. ventilation or enclosure is not used, respirators should be * This chemical is on the Special Health Hazard Substance worn. List because it is CORROSIVE. * Wear protective work clothing. * Definitions are provided on page 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Models of Transactions Structuring Applications Flat Transaction Flat
    Structuring Applications • Many applications involve long transactions Models of Transactions that make many database accesses • To deal with such complex applications many transaction processing systems Chapter 19 provide mechanisms for imposing some structure on transactions 2 Flat Transaction Flat Transaction • Consists of: begin transaction – Computation on local variables • Abort causes the begin transaction • not seen by DBMS; hence will be ignored in most future discussion execution of a program ¡£ ¤¦©¨ – Access to DBMS using call or ¢¡£ ¥¤§¦©¨ that restores the statement level interface variables updated by the ¡£ ¤¦©¨ • This is transaction schedule; commit ….. applies to these operations ¢¡£ ¤§¦©¨ ….. transaction to the state • No internal structure they had when the if condition then abort • Accesses a single DBMS transaction first accessed commit commit • Adequate for simple applications them. 3 4 Some Limitations of Flat Transactions • Only total rollback (abort) is possible – Partial rollback not possible Providing Structure Within a • All work lost in case of crash Single Transaction • Limited to accessing a single DBMS • Entire transaction takes place at a single point in time 5 6 1 Savepoints begin transaction S1; Savepoints Call to DBMS sp1 := create_savepoint(); S2; sp2 := create_savepoint(); • Problem: Transaction detects condition that S3; requires rollback of recent database changes if (condition) {rollback (sp1); S5}; S4; that it has made commit • Solution 1: Transaction reverses changes • Rollback to spi causes
    [Show full text]
  • Salt: Combining ACID and BASE in a Distributed Database
    Salt: Combining ACID and BASE in a Distributed Database Chao Xie, Chunzhi Su, Manos Kapritsos, Yang Wang, Navid Yaghmazadeh, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Prince Mahajan, The University of Texas at Austin https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/presentation/xie This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. October 6–8, 2014 • Broomfield, CO 978-1-931971-16-4 Open access to the Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation is sponsored by USENIX. Salt: Combining ACID and BASE in a Distributed Database Chao Xie, Chunzhi Su, Manos Kapritsos, Yang Wang, Navid Yaghmazadeh, Lorenzo Alvisi, Prince Mahajan The University of Texas at Austin Abstract: This paper presents Salt, a distributed recently popularized by several NoSQL systems [1, 15, database that allows developers to improve the perfor- 20, 21, 27, 34]. Unlike ACID, BASE offers more of a set mance and scalability of their ACID applications through of programming guidelines (such as the use of parti- the incremental adoption of the BASE approach. Salt’s tion local transactions [32, 37]) than a set of rigorously motivation is rooted in the Pareto principle: for many ap- specified properties and its instantiations take a vari- plications, the transactions that actually test the perfor- ety of application-specific forms. Common among them, mance limits of ACID are few. To leverage this insight, however, is a programming style that avoids distributed Salt introduces BASE transactions, a new abstraction transactions to eliminate the performance and availabil- that encapsulates the workflow of performance-critical ity costs of the associated distributed commit protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Systems
    Distributed Systems Lec 15: Crashes and Recovery: Write-ahead Logging Slide acks: Dave Andersen (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/15-440/F10/lectures/Write-ahead-Logging.pdf) Last Few Times (Reminder) • Single-operation consistency – Strict, sequential, causal, and eventual consistency • Multi-operation transactions – ACID properties: atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability • Isolation: two-phase locking (2PL) – Grab locks for all touched objects, then release all locks – Detect or avoid deadlocks by timing out and reverting • Atomicity: two-phase commit (2PC) – Two phases: prepare and commit Two-Phase Commit (Reminder) Transaction Transaction Coordinator (TC) Participant (TP) -- just one -- -- one or more -- TP not allowed to Abort after it’s agreed to Commit Example transfer (X@bank A, Y@bank B, $20) Suppose initially: X.bal = $100 Y.bal = $3 client Bank A Bank B • Clients desire: 1. Atomicity: transfer either happens or not at all 2. Concurrency control: maintain serializability Example transfer (X@bank A, Y@bank B, $20) Suppose initially: X.bal = $100 Y.bal = $3 int transfer(src, dst, amt) { For simplicity, assume the client transaction = begin(); code looks like this: if (src.bal > amt) { int transfer(src, dst, amt) { src.bal -= amt; transaction = begin(); dst.bal += amt; src.bal -= amt; return transaction.commit(); dst.bal += amt; } else { return transaction.commit(); transaction.abort(); } return ABORT; } The banks can unilaterally } decide to COMMIT or ABORT transaction Example TC TP-A TP-B (client or 3rd-party) transaction.commit() prepare B checks if transaction prepare can be committed, if so, blocks rA lock item Y, vote “yes” (use 2PL for this). rB outcome A does similarly (but outcome locks X).
    [Show full text]
  • Dissociation Constants of Organic Acids and Bases
    DISSOCIATION CONSTANTS OF ORGANIC ACIDS AND BASES This table lists the dissociation (ionization) constants of over pKa + pKb = pKwater = 14.00 (at 25°C) 1070 organic acids, bases, and amphoteric compounds. All data apply to dilute aqueous solutions and are presented as values of Compounds are listed by molecular formula in Hill order. pKa, which is defined as the negative of the logarithm of the equi- librium constant K for the reaction a References HA H+ + A- 1. Perrin, D. D., Dissociation Constants of Organic Bases in Aqueous i.e., Solution, Butterworths, London, 1965; Supplement, 1972. 2. Serjeant, E. P., and Dempsey, B., Ionization Constants of Organic Acids + - Ka = [H ][A ]/[HA] in Aqueous Solution, Pergamon, Oxford, 1979. 3. Albert, A., “Ionization Constants of Heterocyclic Substances”, in where [H+], etc. represent the concentrations of the respective Katritzky, A. R., Ed., Physical Methods in Heterocyclic Chemistry, - species in mol/L. It follows that pKa = pH + log[HA] – log[A ], so Academic Press, New York, 1963. 4. Sober, H.A., Ed., CRC Handbook of Biochemistry, CRC Press, Boca that a solution with 50% dissociation has pH equal to the pKa of the acid. Raton, FL, 1968. 5. Perrin, D. D., Dempsey, B., and Serjeant, E. P., pK Prediction for Data for bases are presented as pK values for the conjugate acid, a a Organic Acids and Bases, Chapman and Hall, London, 1981. i.e., for the reaction 6. Albert, A., and Serjeant, E. P., The Determination of Ionization + + Constants, Third Edition, Chapman and Hall, London, 1984. BH H + B 7. Budavari, S., Ed., The Merck Index, Twelth Edition, Merck & Co., Whitehouse Station, NJ, 1996.
    [Show full text]