Transaction Processing Monitors (Chapter 5. Transaction processing book)

-

"Transaction Processing Monitors" is chapter 5 as part of our transaction processing book reading journey. 

This chapter had been the hardest to chapter to read and understand. It went into implementation concerns in contrast to the previous chapters which discussed design principles and concepts. It turns out 1980s were a very different time, and it is very hard to relate to the systems and infrastructure at that time. The people in our reading group also were lost, and found this chapter very hard to engage with. 


1980s

1980s lab 09

Ok, we are back at the year 1990 when this book is being written. This is when the internet and the web were still obscure.  Client-server processing is the modern thing then, and had just started to replace for time-sharing for databases and transaction processing.

This chapter talks about transaction oriented processing. If I squint at it, I can see the concepts of SLAs and shared responsibility models between a cloud customer and provider in these description.

"Despite these additional responsibilities, the performance requirements of TP systems are similar to those of real-time systems. Even though no maximum response time for all requests of a certain type must be guaranteed, the usual requirement is that around 90% of all requests have a response time less than x seconds. This qualifies transaction processing systems as soft real-time systems."

"System does recovery. Because of the use of shared data, there must be formal guarantees of consistency that are automatically maintained. After a crash, all users must be informed about the current state of their environment, which functions were executed, which were not, and so on. The guiding principle here is determined by the ACID properties of transactions."


Transaction processing monitor (TP monitor)

This was the term we found very confusing. We were not able to see which concept in modern databases the TP monitor corresponds to. This seems to be a fuzzy term even at that time, as the book warns: "In a contest for the least well-defined software term, TP monitor would be a tough contender."


Do you notice the TP monitor box on the left. It interacts with the application programs: it dispatches them and gets notified when they are done. The application program invokes transactions, which is managed by a transaction model. This is a very confusing diagram, and it is hard to make anything of TP monitor since we are missing context about the workloads and software architectures of the time.


This is where I emailed Pat Helland, the apostate philosopher of database systems, and my dear friend, for help. I imagine he had a smile emerge on his lips, and he looked in to the distance out of his office window, and traveled down the memory lane. Below is what he wrote back. This was very helpful.

TLDR: A tp-monitor is an application execution environment for stylized applications focused on connecting humans to databases in an OLTP environment.

-----

Most computing in the 1960s & 1970s was memo-post batch work:

  • Load the state of the business from last nights mag tapes
  • Load the changes to "post" against last night's state of the system
  • Process the changes
  • Dump tonight's state on mag tapes.

In the 1960s, 1970s, & early 80s, a "transaction" had two broad meanings:

  • An interaction with a human
  • A type of computation to support that interaction with a human
    • Example 1) a "debit-credit" transaction (e.g., TPB-B) meant the work a teller at a bank did to deposit or withdraw
    • Example 2) an airline reservation transaction would book a flight through the Sabre system 

There were a number of application execution environments helping run "transactions" -- the code for work by humans against the computer.

  • CICS (Customer Information Control System) : This worked with different databases to store data -- notably IMS/DB
  • IMS : Both IMS/DB (a hierarchical database) and IMS/DC (a combination of an app execution environment and data communications to front-end terminals, this was later rebranded IMS/TM)
  • Tandem NonStop Pathway: A Tandem specific TM Monitor for block mode terminal interaction with the NonStop SQL database
    • Handled requests from block mode terminals
    • Processed a transaction per terminal interaction against the database
    • Designed for transparent fault tolerance with idempotent (transactional) processing of the work.
  • Lots more...

So, in summary, a tp-monitor is an application execution environment for stylized applications focused on connecting humans to databases in an OLTP environment. 

----


The application database duality

The application and the database were one at the beginning. 1970s, a "database" included apps and managing directly attached block mode terminals. Networking meant hooking up to your terminals. They were data management systems, that are more like workflow systems, where the data management parts are interleaved within the application logic. 

Then the database (as a concept) gradually got peeled out of the integrated whole as the abstractions like relational model and transactions started to emerge. But due to performance reasons, a new kind of coupling started. Stored procedures were commonly employed to execute application code/logic in the database. We saw the application reach into the database.

Since then we have seen the pendulum swing back and forth between these directions since then. This post provides a recent discussion of workflow-centric versus database-centric transactions concept. 

"As Ian Livingstone (who provided feedback on this piece) put it, “It’s the classic ‘Do you bring the application logic to the database, or the database to the application logic?’ playing out again ... this time brought on by breaking up the monolith.” Having had that dichotomy for decades, it’s clear both models will persist in the short term. It’s far less clear that’ll remain the case in the long run. "


Finally the transaction processing book mentions an interesting direction: "Some believe it would be best if the operating systems just swallowed the TP monitor, thus making transactions a basic system service. This issue is reconsidered in Chapter 6, after the similarities between operating systems and TP systems have become clear." 

I think today the DBOS project is trying to do research along this direction.


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. Expository papers
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 >>

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 >>

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 >>

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 >>