Compositional Programming and Testing of Dynamic Distributed Systems

-

This paper is authored by Ankush Desai, Amar Phanishayee, Shaz Qadeer, and Sanjit A. Seshia, and it appeared at OOPSLA 2018.

The paper describes the ModP framework extension over the P language. P is a language developed for safe event-driven programming. P models processes as state machines: the state machines communicate via message passing, and events cause state machines to transition between states. 

The killer feature of P is unifying modeling with programming! P enables the programmers to write specifications and enables systematic testing both via random testing and exhaustive symbolic execution testing.

P is used in event driven systems such as device drivers and robotics. The P GitHub page states that P is used in Microsoft (P# and Coyote) and also used extensively at AWS for model-based testing of complex distributed systems.  


Compositional testing of distributed systems

A problem with systematic testing is that monolithic testing of large systems fail due to combinatorial state space explosion. Achieving full coverage testing of a large monolithic system takes forever. The ModP framework extension in this paper addresses this problem. 

To achieve scalability of systematic testing, *decomposition* is used. ModP shows how to decompose the monolithic system-level testing problem to component-level testing problems, and how to achieve scalable model-based integration testing of distributed systems.

In order to lift the component-level testing to the  whole system-level, ModP employs the theory of assume-guarantee (AG) reasoning (also known as rely-guarantee reasoning). This is a classic idea in formal methods proposed more than 30 years ago. Assume-guarantee starts with each component specifying its assume from its environment and its provided guarantee in return about its transitions. Note that a component's environment is formed by the other components it will be composed with. Thus if a component's assume is satisfied by the combined guarantees provided by the other components, we can bank on the guarantee from that component. Therefore the AG theorem states that it is possible to take the conjunction of all components' AG specifications and derive the system AG specification.

In the ModP testing approach, each component is first automatically tested for showing refinement with respect to the corresponding abstract modules and specifications. Then each component is composed with the abstract versions of the other components (as in mocking but more rigorously now) and is tested for system level specifications. This testing can be done using randomized property testing or via using better coverage symbolic execution testing.

Composing the concrete implementations Two Phase Commit and MultiPaxos SMR and testing them together monolithically would not work due to state space explosion. So ModP composes Two Phase Commit with the abstract version of MultiPaxos SMR, the SMR abstraction, and tests them first. Then ModP composes MultiPaxos SMR with the abstract version of Two Phase Commit, SMR client to make sure there is no incompatibility there either. Finally by using the AG theorem, ModP infers the concrete versions of the two components composed would also provide the same correctness properties. An added bonus is that if we later want to swap Chain Replication with MultiPaxos, we do not need to repeat the Two Phase Commit and SMR abstraction test again. We just perform Chain Replication and SMR client tests. 

The ModP approach adds rigor to the traditional integration testing, and achieves a very good coverage. The cost to the programmer is to write the abstract modules and specifications to test with. It does not provide as good coverage as proof based approaches like Dafny and Armada. However, proof-based approaches incur high overhead for the programmer in coming up with the proof hints and even then do not scale well to large systems, especially to distributed systems, due to the combinatorial state space explosion problem. 

In the context of distributed systems, the AG reasoning also gets somewhat complicated due to the dynamicity involved: the processes are created *dynamically* and the communication topology may also change *dynamically*. Most of the discussion in the paper is about the technical workarounds that were required to make the AG theory work elegantly in this dynamic model. To make this work, ModP introduced interfaces, input-event-hiding rule, and a well-formedness check that reinforces output (send event and interface) disjointness.zoo


Results

The paper demonstrated the power of ModP's model-based integration testing framework by building a transaction-commit service using two phase commit and MultiPaxos or Chain Replication. A significant finding in the paper (Figure 13) is that there is a 100 folds reduction in execution traces for testing when substituting an abstract module for the environment instead of testing against the concrete module.



Fig 14 shows that, by enabling compositional testing, ModP achieves faster bug finding with prioritized random search as compared to monolithic testing. Moreover while the symbolic execution completes in 1.3 hours in the decomposed system, it does not finish on the monolithic even after 10 hours.


The conference presentation from Ankush Desai is excellent, and I refer you to that, the paper pdf, and the GitHub repo if you are interested more in the P language. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hints for Distributed Systems Design

-
This is with apologies to Butler Lampson, who published the " Hints for computer system design " paper 40 years ago in SOSP'83. I don't claim to match that work of course. I just thought I could draft this post to organize my thinking about designing distributed systems and get feedback from others. I start with the same  disclaimer Lampson gave. These hints are not novel, not foolproof recipes, not laws of design, not precisely formulated, and not always appropriate. They are just hints.  They are context dependent, and some of them may be controversial. That being said, I have seen these hints successfully applied in distributed systems design throughout my 25 years in the field, starting from the theory of distributed systems (98-01), immersing into the practice of wireless sensor networks (01-11), and working on cloud computing systems both in the academia and industry ever since. These heuristic principles have been applied knowingly or unknowingly and has proven...
Read more >>

Learning about distributed systems: where to start?

-
This is definitely not a "learn distributed systems in 21 days" post. I recommend a principled, from the foundations-up, studying of distributed systems, which will take a good three months in the first pass, and many more months to build competence after that. If you are practical and coding oriented you may not like my advice much. You may object saying, "Shouldn't I learn distributed systems with coding and hands on? Why can I not get started by deploying a Hadoop cluster, or studying the Raft code." I think that is the wrong way to go about learning distributed systems, because seeing similar code and programming language constructs will make you think this is familiar territory, and will give you a false sense of security. But, nothing can be further from the truth. Distributed systems need radically different software than centralized systems do.  --A. Tannenbaum This quotation is literally the first sentence in my distributed systems syllabus. Inst...
Read more >>

Making database systems usable

-
Image
C. J. Date's Sigmod 1983 keynote, "Database Usability", was prescient. Usability is the most important thing to the customers. They care less about impressive benchmarks or clever algorithms, and more about whether they can operate and use a database efficiently to query, update, analyze, and persist their data with minimal headache. (BTW, does anyone have a link to the contents of this Sigmod'83 talk? There is no transcript around, except for this short abstract .) The paper we cover today is from Sigmod 2007. It takes on the database usability problem raised in that 1983 keynote head-on, and calls out that the king is still naked.  Let's give some context for the year 2007. Yes, XML format was still popular then. The use-case in the paper is XQuery. The paper does not contain any  reference to json. MongoDB would be released in 2009 with the document model; and that seems to be great timing for some of the usability pains mentioned in the paper! Web 2.0 was in ...
Read more >>

Looming Liability Machines (LLMs)

-
As part of our zoom reading group ( wow, 4.5 years old now ), we discussed a paper that uses LLMs for automatic root cause analysis (RCA) for cloud incidents. This was a pretty straightforward application of LLMs. The proposed system employs an LLM to match incoming incidents to incident handlers based on their alert types, predicts the incident's root cause category, and provides an explanatory narrative. The only customization is through prompt-engineering. Since this is a custom domain, I think a more principled and custom-designed  machine learning system would be more appropriate rather than adopting LLMs. Anyways, the use of LLMs for RCAs spooked me vicerally. I couldn't find the exact words during the paper discussion, but I can articulate this better now. Let me explain. RCA is serious business Root cause analysis (RCA) is the process of identifying the underlying causes of a problem/incident, rather than just addressing its symptoms. One RCA heuristic is asking 5 Why...
Read more >>

Foundational distributed systems papers

-
I talked about the importance of reading foundational papers last week. To followup, here is my compilation of foundational papers in the distributed systems area. (I focused on the core distributed systems area, and did not cover networking, security, distributed ledgers, verification work etc. I even left out distributed transactions, I hope to cover them at a later date.)  I classified the papers by subject, and listed them in chronological order. I also listed expository papers and blog posts at the end of each section. Time and State in Distributed Systems Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Leslie Lamport, Commn. of the ACM,  1978. Distributed Snapshots: Determining Global States of a Distributed System. K. Mani Chandy Leslie Lamport, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1985. Virtual Time and Global States of Distributed Systems.  Mattern, F. 1988. Practical uses of synchronized clocks in distributed systems. B. Liskov, 1991. Exp...
Read more >>

Advice to the young

-
Image
I notice I haven't written any advice posts recently. Here is a collection of my advice posts pre 2020. I've been feeling all this elderly wisdom pent up in me, ready to pour at any moment. So here it goes. Get ready to quench your thirst from my fount of wisdom. No man, think for yourself, only get what works for you. It is called foundations, not theory Foundations of computer science (or rather any field of study) are the most important topics you can learn. These lay down the frame of thinking/perspective for that area of study. Yet, I am saddened to hear these called as "theory", and labeled as "unpractical". This couldn't be farther from the truth. Take a look at how I recommend studying distributed systems . Don't you dare call this "theory" and "unpractical". This lays the bedrock that you build your practice on. Don't skimp on the foundations. Don't build your home on quicksand. Keep your hands dirty, your mind cl...
Read more >>

Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects

-
Image
This paper is from Herlihy and Wing appeared in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1990. This is the canonical reference for the linearizability definition. I had not read this paper in detail before, so I thought it would be good to go to the source to see if there are additional delightful surprises in the original text. Hence, this post. I will dive into a technical analysis of the paper first, and then discuss some of my takes toward the end. I had written an accessible explanation of linearizability earlier; you may want to read that first. I will assume an understanding of linearizability to keep this review at reasonable length. Introduction I love how the old papers just barge in with the model, without bothered by pleasantries such as motivation of the problem. These are the first two sentences of the introduction. "A concurrent system consists of a collection of sequential processes that communicate through shared typed objects . This model encompass...
Read more >>

Understanding the Performance Implications of Storage-Disaggregated Databases

-
Image
Storage-compute disaggregation in databases has emerged as a pivotal architecture in cloud environments, as evidenced by Amazon ( Aurora ), Microsoft ( Socrates ), Google (AlloyDB), Alibaba ( PolarDB ), and Huawei (Taurus). This approach decouples compute from storage, allowing for independent and elastic scaling of compute and storage resources. It provides fault-tolerance at the storage level. You can then share the storage for other services, such as adding read-only replicas for the databases. You can even use the storage level for easier sharding of your database. Finally, you can also use this for exporting a changelog asynchronously to feed into peripheral cloud services, such as analytics. Disaggregated architecture was the topic of Sigmod 23 panel . I think this quote summarizes the industry's thinking on the topic. "Disaggregated architecture is here, and is not going anywhere. In a disaggregated architecture, storage is fungible, and computing scales independently. ...
Read more >>

Scalable OLTP in the Cloud: What’s the BIG DEAL?

-
Image
This paper is from Pat Helland, the apostate philosopher of database systems, overall a superb person, and a good friend of mine. The paper appeared this week at CIDR'24. (Check out the program for other interesting papers). The motivating question behind this work is: " What are the asymptotic limits to scale for cloud OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) systems? " Pat says that the CIDR 2023 paper "Is Scalable OLTP in the Cloud a Solved Problem?" prompted this question.  The answer to the question? Pat says that the answer lies in the joint responsibility of database and the application. If you know of Pat's work, which I have summarized several in this blog , you would know that Pat has been advocating along these lines before. But this paper provides a very crisp, specific, concrete answer. Read on for my summary of the paper. Disclaimer: This is a wisdom and technical information/detail packed 13-page paper, so I will try my best to summarize the sa...
Read more >>

Designing Data Intensive Applications (DDIA) Book

-
Image
We started reading this book as part of Alex Petrov's book club . We just got started, so you can join us, by joining the discord channel above. We meet Wednesday's 11am Eastern Time.  Previously we had read transaction processing book by Grey and Reuters. This page links to my summaries of that book. Chp 1. Reliable, Scalable, and Maintainable Applications I love the diagrams opening each chapter. Beautiful! The first chapter consists of warm up stuff. It talks about the definitions of reliabilty, scalability, and maintainability. It is still engaging, because  it is written with an educator and technical blogger voice, rather than a dry academic voice. This book came out on 2017. Martin is working on the new version. So if you have comments for things to focus on for the new version, it would be helpful to collect them in a document and email it to Martin. For example, I am curious about how the below paragraph from the Preface will get revised with 8 more years of hindsight...
Read more >>