一致性的3种协议，并发，事务

Two Phase Commit

MVCC

Paxos

TPC对应于传统数据库上的local cluster的一致性，分布式事务，每个节点上的local事务可以是不同的亦可以是相同的（replica）

MVCC的思想是抓住Transaction的本质：server state从一个一致性state迁移到另一个一致性state，也就是Transaction是工作在一个snapshot上。MVCC模拟时间流逝和历史，对data item的更新就是增加一个新版本。这样，一个事务对应的server state的snapshot就是这个事务对应的时刻，每个data item的相应版本组合而成的视图。

对于长读事务，并发的的写事务是完全没有影响的，只要那个读事务知道每个data item的对应于它这个事务的版本。

对于两个并发的写事务，如果把server state看作一个整体，理论上肯定就是冲突。但是要具体看

1）首先如果更新的是同一个数据，必然是冲突

2）如果更新的是不同的数据，要看作出更新依赖的数据，也就是读的数据，如果T1 没有改变T2读的数据，那么T2在T1之前，之中，之后执行效果是一样的。当然还要看T2对T1的影响。总之，就是看两个写事务是否存在一个sequential equivalence（可能是T1必须在T2前面，可能是T2必须在T1前面，或者都行）

注意两个特点

1）并发事务不存在一个语义上的先后顺序，也就是无所谓的，关键是每个事务从一个consistent state到另一个consistent state就行

2）MVCC依赖一个全局的事务Id 生成器，impose一个事务顺序。

更正：这里可能能把sequential equivalence和 MVCC混了，MVCC应该是impose一个 Transaction的顺序的。

Paxos对应的是一个不依赖一个中心的coordinator role的 peer-to-peer 的cluster的一致性协议。TPC和MVCC都依赖一个coordinator

[MUSIC] Now, how did databases solve this problem,
or why do they take so long? Well, there's a protocol called
two-phase commit that's fairly standard in these situations for
synchronous processing. And so the motivation for why you want
to do Two-Phase Commit goes like this. If you wanna have a bunch of replicas or
other kinds of subordinates, anybody that wants to see the change. You make your status update and
your friends need to see it, the server is holding those different
friends need to be told of the change. And so if you just go ahead and tell them,
say look, I made this change go ahead and update your internal state
to reflect Sue's new status. Then you can have some of them report
back success, but one of them could fail. But now you're in trouble, right? Because this one has the old value
because it failed for some reason. Either you didn't hear back from the
server at all, or it said look something's wrong with my disk, I can't do it so
it responds with a failure, regardless. And these two have already successfully
applied the, I'll put a check mark, have already successfully
applied the transaction. And so now you're in an inconsistent
state, subordinate3 has the old value, and these guys have the new values. Okay? So how you solve this
problem is Two-Phase Commit. So the first phase here is the coordinator
sends a Prepare to Commit message, and the subordinates make sure they take
action to make sure that they can commit that transaction when asked,
no matter what. And so
typically this means writing to a log the information related
to the transaction. So that even if the power goes out, when they wake back up they
can pull it from the log. Okay. And if subordinates reply with
a yes I'm ready to commit and then in phase two if all the subordinates
say they're ready then you go ahead and send the commit message. And if anyone failed, if rather instead anyone failed then
you send back an abort message. And the individuals can clean up. Okay, so this is fine and
here's a schematic of it. In step one they say prepare,
these guys all write ahead to the log and say I'm about to write this, or
I'm going to commit this transaction. They respond with yes, I'm ready to do so. The coordinator comes back with commit and
then finally all the work is done and I'm not gonna show the schematic for
what happens in a failure. That essentially the coordinator
needs to watch out for it and send back an abort if
something has gone wrong. There's a couple of problems with this. One is there's some dependencies
on the coordinator here, that if the coordinator fails at the wrong
time things can go kind of screwy. And a fully distributed protocol for
insuring mutual committment of transactions, or other
kinds of operations, can be achieved. One of the most successful and
popular methods of doing this is an algorithm called Paxos, that we're
not going to talk about in detail. But you're gonna see that term if
you look at some of the readings for the new sequel systems. Okay, so think Two-Phase Commit
on a local cluster for a database, think Paxos for a distributed
sort of peer-to-peer kind of protocol. And just briefly what Paxos is essentially
doing is, it's a voting scheme. So people sort of vote on the individual
servers about to self determine whether or not they're supposed to commit
the transaction or not. And the details can get
a little bit subtle. But, overall it's pretty
simple given the nature, given the difficulty of
the task that's involved. Okay, so fine, so that's one problem. The other problem is just with
that Paxos sort of shares is that this can take a while. Right?
If subordinates don't respond promptly he might be waiting around if things fail
multiple times you need to abort and retry transactions of the applications
there, things can go slow. When there is, it doesn't necessarily
scares when there's thousands or millions of subordinates need to do this
or you're kind of dead in the water. So other protocols that I'm not gonna
talk about in too much detail include multi version, but you will see it
in some of the papers mentioned. Multi-version Concurrency Control where
each write creates a new version of the data item. And the legality of a read is determined
by checking the timestamp of the read transaction versus the current timestamp
of the version that you're trying to read. Okay, and if it's been updated since
the time you're supposed to be reading it, prior to MVCC all you could do
is abort the read and say, look, you're looking at dirty data, you're done. But with Multi-version Concurrency Control
you can actually keep multiple versions around and redirect the read to the, potentially to the prior
version that is correct. Okay, and thereby avoid
aborting certain transactions. That mechanism still has
a dependency on a coordinator role to administer time stamps. A fully distributed scheme,
where the decision to go forward with a transaction or
to abort a transaction is made the revoting scheme among peers is Paxos. And Paxos is very successful and
very widely applied and you'll see it mentioned in some
of those SQL papers if you take the time to read them and
they're on the reading list. And so this relieves the dependency
on having these central coordinator, but is still Synchronous and
still has the potential for deadlock and can take some amount of time to reach
consensus depending on what's going on and what kind of failures are happening. And so it's difficult to
guarantee very high performance or very low latency response times. [MUSIC]