skip to main content

Title: Database isolation by scheduling
Transaction isolation is conventionally achieved by restricting access to the physical items in a database. To maximize performance, isolation functionality is often packaged with recovery, I/O, and data access methods in a monolithic transactional storage manager. While this design has historically afforded high performance in online transaction processing systems, industry trends indicate a growing need for a new approach in which intertwined components of the transactional storage manager are disaggregated into modular services. This paper presents a new method to modularize the isolation component. Our work builds on predicate locking, an isolation mechanism that enables this modularization by locking logical rather than physical items in a database. Predicate locking is rarely used as the core isolation mechanism because of its high theoretical complexity and perceived overhead. However, we show that this overhead can be substantially reduced in practice by optimizing for common predicate structures. We present DIBS, a transaction scheduler that employs our predicate locking optimizations to guarantee isolation as a modular service. We evaluate the performance of DIBS as the sole isolation mechanism in a data processing system. In this setting, DIBS scales up to 10.5 million transactions per second on a TATP workload. We also explore how DIBS can be applied to existing database systems to increase transaction throughput. DIBS reduces per-transaction file system writes by 90% on TATP in SQLite, resulting in a 3X improvement in throughput. Finally, DIBS reduces row contention on YCSB in MySQL, providing serializable isolation with a 1.4X improvement in throughput.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. A key design decision for data systems is whether they follow the row-store or the column-store paradigm. The former supports transactional workloads, while the latter is better for analytical queries. This decision has a profound impact on the entire data system architecture. The multiple-decadelong journey of these two designs has led to a new family of hybrid transactional/analytical processing (HTAP) architectures. Several efforts have been proposed to reap the benefits of both worlds by proposing systems that maintain multiple copies of data (in different physical layouts) and convert them into the desired layout as required. Due to data duplication, the additional necessary bookkeeping, and the cost of converting data between different layouts, these systems compromise between efficient analytics and data freshness. We depart from existing designs by proposing a radically new approach. We ask the question: “What if we could access any layout and ship only the relevant data through the memory hierarchy by transparently converting rows to (arbitrary groups of) columns?” To achieve this functionality, we capitalize on the reinvigorated trend of hardware specialization (that has been accelerated due to the tapering of Moore’s law) to propose Relational Fabric, a near-data vertical partitioner that allows memory or storage component to perform on-the-fly transparent data transformation. By exposing an intuitive API, Relational Fabric pushes vertical partitioning to the hardware, which has a profound impact on the process of designing and building data systems. (A) There is no need for data duplication and layout conversion, making HTAP systems viable using a single layout. (B) It simplifies the memory and storage manager that needs to maintain and update a single data layout. (C) It reduces unnecessary data movement through the memory hierarchy allowing for better hardware utilization, and ultimately better performance. In this paper, we present Relational Fabric for both memory and storage. We present our initial results on Relational Fabric for in-memory systems and discuss the challenges of building this hardware, as well as the opportunities it brings for simplicity and innovation in the data system software stack, including physical design, query optimization, query evaluation, and concurrency control. 
    more » « less
  2. This paper presents Rolis, a new speedy and fault-tolerant replicated multi-core transactional database system. Rolis's aim is to mask the high cost of replication by ensuring that cores are always doing useful work and not waiting for each other or for other replicas. Rolis achieves this by not mixing the multi-core concurrency control with multi-machine replication, as is traditionally done by systems that use Paxos to replicate the transaction commit protocol. Instead, Rolis takes an "execute-replicate-replay" approach. Rolis first speculatively executes the transaction on the leader machine, and then replicates the per-thread transaction log to the followers using a novel protocol that leverages independent Paxos instances to avoid coordination, while still allowing followers to safely replay. The execution, replication, and replay are carefully designed to be scalable and have nearly zero coordination overhead across cores. Our evaluation shows that Rolis can achieve 1.03M TPS (transactions per second) on the TPC-C workload, using a 3-replica setup where each server has 32 cores. This throughput result is orders of magnitude higher than traditional software approaches we tested (e.g., 2PL), and is comparable to state-of-the-art, fault-tolerant, in-memory storage systems built using kernel bypass and advanced networking hardware, even though Rolis runs on commodity machines. 
    more » « less
  3. Using flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) as main memory has been proposed as a practical solution towards scaling memory capacity for data-intensive applications. However, almost all existing approaches rely on the paging mechanism to move data between SSDs and host DRAM. This inevitably incurs significant performance overhead and extra I/O traffic. Thanks to the byte-addressability supported by the PCIe interconnect and the internal memory in SSD controllers, it is feasible to access SSDs in both byte and block granularity today. Exploiting the benefits of SSD's byte-accessibility in today's memory-storage hierarchy is, however, challenging as it lacks systems support and abstractions for programs. In this paper, we present FlatFlash, an optimized unified memory-storage hierarchy, to efficiently use byte-addressable SSD as part of the main memory. We extend the virtual memory management to provide a unified memory interface so that programs can access data across SSD and DRAM in byte granularity seamlessly. We propose a lightweight, adaptive page promotion mechanism between SSD and DRAM to gain benefits from both the byte-addressable large SSD and fast DRAM concurrently and transparently, while avoiding unnecessary page movements. Furthermore, we propose an abstraction of byte-granular data persistence to exploit the persistence nature of SSDs, upon which we rethink the design primitives of crash consistency of several representative software systems that require data persistence, such as file systems and databases. Our evaluation with a variety of applications demonstrates that, compared to the current unified memory-storage systems, FlatFlash improves the performance for memory-intensive applications by up to 2.3x, reduces the tail latency for latency-critical applications by up to 2.8x, scales the throughput for transactional database by up to 3.0x, and decreases the meta-data persistence overhead for file systems by up to 18.9x. FlatFlash also improves the cost-effectiveness by up to 3.8x compared to DRAM-only systems, while enhancing the SSD lifetime significantly. 
    more » « less
  4. The design of the buffer manager in database management systems (DBMSs) is influenced by the performance characteristics of volatile memory (DRAM) and non-volatile storage (e.g., SSD). The key design assumptions have been that the data must be migrated to DRAM for the DBMS to operate on it and that storage is orders of magnitude slower than DRAM. But the arrival of new non-volatile memory (NVM) technologies that are nearly as fast as DRAM invalidates these previous assumptions. This paper presents techniques for managing and designing a multi-tier storage hierarchy comprising of DRAM, NVM, and SSD. Our main technical contributions are a multi-tier buffer manager and a storage system designer that leverage the characteristics of NVM. We propose a set of optimizations for maximizing the utility of data migration between different devices in the storage hierarchy. We demonstrate that these optimizations have to be tailored based on device and workload characteristics. Given this, we present a technique for adapting these optimizations to achieve a near-optimal buffer management policy for an arbitrary workload and storage hierarchy without requiring any manual tuning. We finally present a recommendation system for designing a multi-tier storage hierarchy for a target workload and system cost budget. Our results show that the NVM-aware buffer manager and storage system designer improve throughput and reduce system cost across different transaction and analytical processing workloads. 
    more » « less
  5. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. 
    more » « less