Distributed Systems 1 A Distributed System 2 Loosely

Distributed Systems 1

A Distributed System 2

Loosely Coupled Distributed Systems r Users are aware of multiplicity of machines. Access to resources of various machines is done explicitly by: m Remote logging into the appropriate remote machine. m Transferring data from remote machines to local machines, via the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) mechanism. 3

Tightly Coupled Distributed. Systems r Users not aware of multiplicity of machines. Access to remote resources similar to access to local resources r Examples m Data Migration – transfer data by transferring entire file, or transferring only those portions of the file necessary for the immediate task. m Computation Migration – transfer the computation, rather than the data, across the system. 4

Distributed-Operating Systems (Cont. ) m Process Migration – execute an entire process, or parts of it, at different sites. • Load balancing – distribute processes across network to even the workload. • Computation speedup – subprocesses can run concurrently on different sites. • Hardware preference – process execution may require specialized processor. • Software preference – required software may be available at only a particular site. • Data access – run process remotely, rather than transfer all data locally. 5

Why Distributed Systems? r Communication m Dealt with this when we talked about networks r Resource sharing r Computational speedup r Reliability 6

Resource Sharing r Distributed Systems offer access to specialized resources of many systems m Example: • Some nodes may have special databases • Some nodes may have access to special hardware devices (e. g. tape drives, printers, etc. ) r DS offers benefits of locating processing near data or sharing special devices 7

OS Support for resource sharing r Resource Management? m Distributed OS can manage diverse resources of nodes in system m Make resources visible on all nodes • Like VM, can provide functional illusion but rarely hide the performance cost r Scheduling? m Distributed OS could schedule processes to run near the needed resources m If need to access data in a large database may be easier to ship code there and results back than to request data be shipped to code 8

Design Issues r Transparency – the distributed system should appear as a conventional, centralized system to the user. r Fault tolerance – the distributed system should continue to function in the face of failure. r Scalability – as demands increase, the system should easily accept the addition of new resources to accommodate the increased demand. r Clusters vs Client/Server m Clusters: a collection of semi-autonomous machines that acts as a single system. 9

Computation Speedup r Some tasks too large for even the fastest single computer m m Real time weather/climate modeling, human genome project, fluid turbulence modeling, ocean circulation modeling, etc. http: //www. nersc. gov/research/GC/gcnersc. html r What to do? m Leave the problem unsolved? m Engineer a bigger/faster computer? m Harness resources of many smaller (commodity? ) machines in a distributed system? 10

Breaking up the problems r To harness computational speedup must first break up the big problem into many smaller problems r More art than science? m Sometimes break up by function • Pipeline? • Job queue? m Sometimes break up by data • Each node responsible for portion of data set? 11

Decomposition Examples r Decrypting a message m Easily parallelizable, give each node a set of keys to try m Job queue – when tried all your keys go back for more? r Modeling ocean circulation m Give each node a portion of the ocean to model (N square ft region? ) m Model flows within region locally m Communicate with nodes managing neighboring regions to model flows into other regions 12

Decomposition Examples (con’t) r Barnes Hut – calculating effect of bodies in space on each other m m Could divide space into Nx. N regions? Some regions have many more bodies r Instead divide up so have roughly same number of bodies r Within a region, bodies have lots of effect on each other (close together) r Abstract other regions as a single body to minimize communication 13

Linear Speedup r Linear speedup is often the goal. m Allocate N nodes to the job goes N times as fast r Once you’ve broken up the problem into N pieces, can you expect it to go N times as fast? m Are the pieces equal? m Is there a piece of the work that cannot be broken up (inherently sequential? ) m Synchronization and communication overhead between pieces? 14

Super-linear Speedup r Sometimes can actually do better than linear speedup! r Especially if divide up a big data set so that the piece needed at each node fits into main memory on that machine r Savings from avoiding disk I/O can outweigh the communication/ synchronization costs r When split up a problem, tension between duplicating processing at all nodes for reliability and simplicity and allowing nodes to specialize 15

OS Support for Parallel Jobs r Process Management? m OS could manage all pieces of a parallel job as one unit m Allow all pieces to be created, managed, destroyed at a single command line m Fork (process, machine)? r Scheduling? m Programmer could specify where pieces should run and or OS could decide • Process Migration? Load Balancing? m Try to schedule piece together so can communicate effectively 16

OS Support for Parallel Jobs (con’t) r Group Communication? m OS could provide facilities for pieces of a single job to communicate easily m Location independent addressing? m Shared memory? m Distributed file system? r Synchronization? m Support for mutually exclusive access to data across multiple machines m Can’t rely on HW atomic operations any more m Deadlock management? m We’ll talk about clock synchronization and two-phase commit later 17

Reliability r Distributed system offers potential for increased reliability m m If one part of system fails, rest could take over Redundancy, fail-over r !BUT! Often reality is that distributed systems offer less reliability m m m “A distributed system is one in which some machine I’ve never heard of fails and I can’t do work!” Hard to get rid of all hidden dependencies No clean failure model • Nodes don’t just fail they can continue in a broken state • Partition network = many nodes fail at once! (Determine who you can still talk to; Are you cut off or are they? ) • Network goes down and up and down again! 18

Robustness r Detect and recover from site failure, function transfer, reintegrate failed site m Failure detection m Reconfiguration 19

Failure Detection r Detecting hardware failure is difficult. r To detect a link failure, a handshaking protocol can r r be used. Assume Site A and Site B have established a link. At fixed intervals, each site will exchange an I-am -up message indicating that they are up and running. If Site A does not receive a message within the fixed interval, it assumes either (a) the other site is not up or (b) the message was lost. Site A can now send an Are-you-up? message to Site B. If Site A does not receive a reply, it can repeat the message or try an alternate route to Site B. 20

Failure Detection (cont) r If Site A does not ultimately receive a reply from Site B, it concludes some type of failure has occurred. r Types of failures: - Site B is down - The direct link between A and B is down - The alternate link from A to B is down - The message has been lost r However, Site A cannot determine exactly why the failure has occurred. r B may be assuming A is down at the same time r Can either assume it can make decisions alone? 21

Reconfiguration r When Site A determines a failure has occurred, it must reconfigure the system: 1. If the link from A to B has failed, this must be broadcast to every site in the system. 2. If a site has failed, every other site must also be notified indicating that the services offered by the failed site are no longer available. r When the link or the site becomes available again, this information must again be broadcast to all other sites. 22

Event Ordering r Problem: distributed systems do not share a clock m Many coordination problems would be simplified if they did (“first one wins”) r Distributed systems do have some sense of time m Events in a single process happen in order m Messages between processes must be sent before they can be received m How helpful is this? 23

Happens-before r Define a Happens-before relation (denoted by ). m 1) If A and B are events in the same process, and A was executed before B, then A B. m 2) If A is the event of sending a message by one process and B is the event of receiving that message by another process, then A B. m 3) If A B and B C then A C. 24

Total ordering? r Happens-before gives a partial ordering of events r We still do not have a total ordering of events 25

Partial Ordering Pi ->Pi+1; Qi -> Qi+1; Ri -> Ri+1 R 0 ->Q 4; Q 3 ->R 4; Q 1 ->P 4; P 1 ->Q 2 26

Total Ordering? P 0, P 1, Q 0, Q 1, Q 2, P 3, P 4, Q 3, R 0, Q 4, R 1, R 2, R 3, R 4 P 0, Q 1, P 1, Q 2, P 3, P 4, Q 3, R 0, Q 4, R 1, R 2, R 3, R 4 P 0, Q 0, P 1, Q 2, P 3, P 4, Q 3, R 0, Q 4, R 1, R 2, R 3, R 4 27

Timestamps r Assume each process has a local logical clock that ticks once per event and that the processes are numbered m m m Clocks tick once per event (including message send) When send a message, send your clock value When receive a message, set your clock to MAX( your clock, timestamp of message + 1) • Thus sending comes before receiving • Only visibility into actions at other nodes happens during communication, communicate synchronizes the clocks m If the timestamps of two events A and B are the same, then use the process identity numbers to break ties. r This gives a total ordering! 28

Distributed Mutual Exclusion (DME) r Problem: We can no longer rely on just an atomic test and set operation on a single machine to build mutual exclusion primitives r Requirement m If Pi is executing in its critical section, then no other process Pj is executing in its critical section. 29

Solution r We present three algorithms to ensure the mutual exclusion execution of processes in their critical sections. m Centralized Distributed Mutual Exclusion (CDME) m Fully Distributed Mutual Exclusion (DDME) m Token passing 30

CDME: Centralized Approach r One of the processes in the system is chosen to coordinate the entry to the critical section. m m A process that wants to enter its critical section sends a request message to the coordinator. The coordinator decides which process can enter the critical section next, and its sends that process a reply message. When the process receives a reply message from the coordinator, it enters its critical section. After exiting its critical section, the process sends a release message to the coordinator and proceeds with its execution. r 3 messages per critical section entry 31

Problems of CDME r Electing the master process? Hardcoded? r Single point of failure? Electing a new master process? r Distributed Election algorithms later… 32

DDME: Fully Distributed Approach r When process Pi wants to enter its critical section, it generates a new timestamp, TS, and sends the message request (Pi, TS) to all other processes in the system. r When process Pj receives a request message, it may reply immediately or it may defer sending a reply back. r When process Pi receives a reply message from all other processes in the system, it can enter its critical section. r After exiting its critical section, the process sends reply messages to all its deferred requests. 33

DDME: Fully Distributed Approach (Cont. ) r The decision whether process Pj replies immediately to a request(Pi, TS) message or defers its reply is based on three factors: m m m If Pj is in its critical section, then it defers its reply to Pi. If Pj does not want to enter its critical section, then it sends a reply immediately to Pi. If Pj wants to enter its critical section but has not yet entered it, then it compares its own request timestamp with the timestamp TS. • If its own request timestamp is greater than TS, then it sends a reply immediately to Pi (Pi asked first). • Otherwise, the reply is deferred. 34

Problems of DDME r Requires complete trust that other processes will play fair m Easy to cheat just by delaying the reply! r The processes needs to know the identity of all other processes in the system m Makes the dynamic addition and removal of processes more complex. r If one of the processes fails, then the entire scheme collapses. m Dealt with by continuously monitoring the state of all the processes in the system. r Constantly bothering people who don’t care m Can I enter my critical section? Can I? 35

Token Passing r Circulate a token among processes in the system r Possession of the token entitles the holder to enter the critical section r Organize processes in system into a logical ring m Pass token around the ring m When you get it, enter critical section if need to then pass it on when you are done (or just pass it on if don’t need it) 36

Problems of Token Passing r If machines with token fails, how to regenerate a new token? r A lot like electing a new coordinator r If process fails, need to repair the break in the logical ring 37

Compare: Number of Messages? r CDME: 3 messages per critical section entry r DDME: The number of messages per critical-section entry is 2 x (n – 1) m Request/reply for everyone but myself r Token passing: Between 0 and n messages m Might luck out and ask for token while I have it or when the person right before me has it m Might need to wait for token to visit everyone else first 38

Compare : Starvation r CDME : Freedom from starvation is ensured if coordinator uses FIFO r DDME: Freedom from starvation is ensured, since entry to the critical section is scheduled according to the timestamp ordering. The timestamp ordering ensures that processes are served in a first-come, first served order. r Token Passing: Freedom from starvation if ring is unidirectional r Caveats m m m network reliable (I. e. machines not “starved” by inability to communicate) If machines fail they are restarted or taken out of consideration (I. e. machines not “starved” by nonresponse of coordinator or another participant) Processes play by the rules 39

Why DDME? r Harder r More messages r Bothers more people r Coordinator just as bothered 40

Atomicity r Recall: Atomicity = either all the operations associated with a program unit are executed to completion, or none are performed. r In a distributed system may have multiple copies of the data , replicas are good for reliability/availability r PROBLEM: How do we atomically update all of the copies? 41

Replica Consistency Problem r Imagine we have multiple bank servers and a client desiring to update their back account m How can we do this? r Allow a client to update any server then have server propagate update to other servers m m Simple and wrong! Simultaneous and conflicting updates can occur at different servers? r Have client send update to all servers m Same problem - race condition – which of the conflicting update will reach server first 42

Two-phase commit r Algorithm for providing atomic updates in a distributed system r Give the servers (or replicas) a chance to say no and if any server says no, client aborts the operation 43

Framework r Goal: Update all replicas atomically m m m Either everyone commits or everyone aborts No inconsistencies even if face of failures Caveat: Assume no byzantine failures (servers stop when they fail – do not continue and generate bad data) r Definitions m m Coordinator: Software entity that shepherds the process (in our example could be one of the servers) Ready to commit: side effects of update safely stored on nonvolatile storage • Even if crash, once say I am ready to commit then when recover will find evidence and continue with commit protocol 44

Two Phase Commit: Phase 1 r Coordinator send a PREPARE message to each replica r Coordinator waits for all replicas to reply with a vote r Each participant send vote m Votes PREPARED if ready to commit and locks data items being updated m Votes NO if unable to get a lock or unable to ensure ready to commit 45

Two Phase Commit: Phase 2 r If coordinator receives PREPARED vote from all replicas r r r then it may decide to commit or abort Coordinator send its decision to all participants If participant receives COMMIT decision then commit changes resulting from update If participant received ABORT decision then discard changes resulting from update Participant replies DONE When Coordinator received DONE from all participants then can delete record of outcome 46

Performance r In absence of failure, 2 PC makes a total of 2 (1. 5? ) round trips of messages before decision is made m Prepare m Vote NO or PREPARE m Commit/abort m Done (but done just for bookkeeping, does not affect response time) 47

Failure Handling in 2 PC – Replica Failure r The log contains a <commit T> record. In this case, the site executes redo(T). r The log contains an <abort T> record. In this case, the site executes undo(T). r The contains a <ready T> record; consult Ci. If Ci is down, site sends query-status T message to the other sites. r The log contains no control records concerning T. In this case, the site executes undo(T). 48

Failure Handling in 2 PC – Coordinator Ci Failure r If an active site contains a <commit T> record in its log, the T must be committed. r If an active site contains an <abort T> record in its log, then T must be aborted. r If some active site does not contain the record <ready T> in its log then the failed coordinator Ci cannot have decided to commit T. Rather than wait for Ci to recover, it is preferable to abort T. r All active sites have a <ready T> record in their logs, but no additional control records. In this case we must wait for the coordinator to recover. m Blocking problem – T is blocked pending the recovery of site Si. 49

Failure Handling r Failure detected with timeouts r If participant times out before getting a PREPARE can abort r If coordinator times out waiting for a vote can abort r If a participant times out waiting for a decision it is blocked! m m Wait for Coordinator to recover? Punt to some other resolution protocol r If a coordinator times out waiting for done, keep record of outcome r other sites may have a replica. 50

Failures in distributed systems r We may want to avoid relying on a single server/coordinator/boss to make progress r Thus want the decision making to be distributed among the participants (“all nodes created equal”) => the “consensus problem” in distributed systems. r However depending on what we can assume about the network, it may be impossible to reach a decision in some cases! 51

Impossibility of Consensus r Network characteristics: m Synchronous - some upper bound on network/processing delay. m Asynchronous - no upper bound on network/processing delay. r Fischer Lynch and Paterson showed: m With even just one failure possible, you cannot guarantee consensus. m Essence of proof: Just before a decision is reached, we can delay a node slightly too long to reach a decision. r But we still want to do it. . Right? 52

Paxos, etc r Simply don’t mention the impossibility r A number of rounds. r Each round has a leader r Each leader tries to get a majority to agree to what it’s proposing r If little progress, move on to next leader. r (impossiblity arises in the last sentence there. . ) 53

Randomized consensus r The first approach to circumventing the r r r impossibility. A number of rounds. In each round there are two phases. In phase one, send your proposal. In phase two, if get a majority for a proposal, decide. Else flip a coin to choose next proposal (all nodes do) Circumvents impossibility by showing that, eventually, with P = 1, all nodes will flip the coin and end up with the same choice for the next proposal => decision in next round. 54

In the real world r Consensus is everywhere - a number of interesting problems in distributed computing can be reduced to consensus (learn to recognize them!) r Asynchronous solutions to consensus are typically faster, simpler and will solve your problem with P == 1. Which will do for me. 55