The relative importance of concurrent writers and weak consistency models

P. Keleher
{"title":"The relative importance of concurrent writers and weak consistency models","authors":"P. Keleher","doi":"10.1109/ICDCS.1996.507905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a detailed comparison of the relative importance of allowing concurrent writers versus the choice of the underlying consistency model. Our comparison is based on single- and multiple-writer versions of a lazy release consistent (LRC) protocol, and a single-writer sequentially consistent protocol, all implemented in the CVM software distributed shared memory system. We find that in our environment, which we believe to be representative of distributed systems today and in the near future, the consistency model has a much higher impact on overall performance than the choice of whether to allow concurrent writers. The multiple writer LRC protocol performs an average of 9% better than the single writer LRC protocol, but 34% better than the single-writer sequentially consistent protocol. Set against this, MW-LRC required an average of 72% memory overhead, compared to 10% overhead for the single-writer protocoIs.","PeriodicalId":159322,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"136","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS.1996.507905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 136

Abstract

This paper presents a detailed comparison of the relative importance of allowing concurrent writers versus the choice of the underlying consistency model. Our comparison is based on single- and multiple-writer versions of a lazy release consistent (LRC) protocol, and a single-writer sequentially consistent protocol, all implemented in the CVM software distributed shared memory system. We find that in our environment, which we believe to be representative of distributed systems today and in the near future, the consistency model has a much higher impact on overall performance than the choice of whether to allow concurrent writers. The multiple writer LRC protocol performs an average of 9% better than the single writer LRC protocol, but 34% better than the single-writer sequentially consistent protocol. Set against this, MW-LRC required an average of 72% memory overhead, compared to 10% overhead for the single-writer protocoIs.
并发写器和弱一致性模型的相对重要性
本文详细比较了允许并发写入器与选择底层一致性模型的相对重要性。我们的比较是基于延迟发布一致性(LRC)协议的单写器和多写器版本,以及单写器顺序一致性协议,它们都是在CVM软件分布式共享内存系统中实现的。我们发现,在我们的环境中(我们认为这是当今和不久的将来分布式系统的代表),一致性模型对整体性能的影响要比选择是否允许并发写入器大得多。多写入器LRC协议的性能平均比单写入器LRC协议高9%,但比单写入器顺序一致性协议高34%。与此相反,MW-LRC平均需要72%的内存开销,而单写入协议的开销为10%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信