Two Section Commit

Deal Score0
Deal Score0


The essence of two section commit, unsurprisingly, is that it carries out an
replace in two phases:

  • the primary, put together, asks every node if it is in a position to promise to hold out
    the replace
  • the second, commit, truly carries it out.

As a part of the put together section, every node taking part within the transaction
acquires no matter it must guarantee that it is going to be in a position to do the
commit within the second section, for example any locks which might be required.
As soon as every node is ready to guarantee it could commit within the second section, it lets
the coordinator know, successfully promising the coordinator that it could and can
commit within the second section. If any node is unable to make that promise, then
the coordinator tells all nodes to rollback, releasing any locks they’ve,
and the transaction is aborted. Provided that all of the individuals comply with go
forward does the second section begin, at which level it is anticipated they’ll
all efficiently replace.

Contemplating a easy distributed key worth retailer implementation,
the 2 section commit protocol works as follows.

The transactional consumer creates a singular identifier known as a transaction identifier.
The consumer additionally retains monitor of different particulars just like the transaction begin time.
That is used, as described later by the locking mechanism, to stop deadlocks.
The distinctive id, together with the extra particulars like the beginning timestamp,
that the consumer tracks is used to refer the transaction throughout the cluster nodes.
The consumer maintains a transaction reference as follows, which is handed alongside
with each request from the consumer to different cluster nodes.

class TransactionRef…

  non-public UUID txnId;
  non-public lengthy startTimestamp;

  public TransactionRef(lengthy startTimestamp) {
      this.txnId = UUID.randomUUID();
      this.startTimestamp = startTimestamp;

class TransactionClient…

  TransactionRef transactionRef;

  public TransactionClient(ReplicaMapper replicaMapper, SystemClock systemClock) {
      this.clock = systemClock;
      this.transactionRef = new TransactionRef(;
      this.replicaMapper = replicaMapper;

One of many cluster nodes acts as a coordinator which tracks the standing of the
transaction on behalf of the consumer.
In a key-value retailer, it’s usually the cluster node holding knowledge for
one of many keys. It’s usually picked up because the cluster node storing knowledge
for the primary key utilized by the consumer.

Earlier than storing any worth, the consumer communicates with the coordinator to inform
it concerning the begin of the transaction.
As a result of the coordinator is among the cluster nodes storing values,
it’s picked up dynamically when the consumer initiates a get or put operation
with a particular key.

class TransactionClient…

  non-public TransactionalKVStore coordinator;
  non-public void maybeBeginTransaction(String key) {
      if (coordinator == null) {
          coordinator = replicaMapper.serverFor(key);

The transaction coordinator retains monitor of the standing of the transaction.
It information each change in a Write-Ahead Log to verify
that the small print can be found in case of a crash.

class TransactionCoordinator…

  Map<TransactionRef, TransactionMetadata> transactions = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
  WriteAheadLog transactionLog;

  public void start(TransactionRef transactionRef) {
      TransactionMetadata txnMetadata = new TransactionMetadata(transactionRef, systemClock, transactionTimeoutMs);
      transactions.put(transactionRef, txnMetadata);

class TransactionMetadata…

  non-public TransactionRef txn;
  non-public Record<String> participatingKeys = new ArrayList<>();
  non-public TransactionStatus transactionStatus;

The consumer sends every key which is a part of the transaction to the coordinator.
This manner the coordinator tracks all of the keys that are a part of the transaction.
The coordinator information the keys that are a part of the transaction in
the transaction metadata.The keys then can be utilized to learn about all the
cluster nodes that are a part of the transaction.
As a result of every key-value is usually replicated with the
Replicated Log,
the chief server dealing with the requests for a specific key would possibly change
over the lifetime of the transaction, so the keys are tracked as a substitute of
the precise server addresses.
The consumer then sends the put or get requests to the server holding the information
for the important thing. The server is picked primarily based on the partitioning technique.
The factor to notice is that the consumer immediately communicates with the server
and never via the coordinator. This avoids sending knowledge twice over the community,
from consumer to coordinator, after which from coordinator to the respective server.

The keys then can be utilized to learn about all of the cluster nodes that are
a part of the transaction. As a result of every key-value is usually replicated with
Replicated Log, the chief server dealing with the requests
for a specific key would possibly change over the life time of the transaction, so
keys are tracked, somewhat than the precise server addresses.

class TransactionClient…

  public CompletableFuture<String> get(String key) {
      coordinator.addKeyToTransaction(transactionRef, key);
      TransactionalKVStore kvStore = replicaMapper.serverFor(key);
      return kvStore.get(transactionRef, key);

  public void put(String key, String worth) {
      coordinator.addKeyToTransaction(transactionRef, key);
      replicaMapper.serverFor(key).put(transactionRef, key, worth);

class TransactionCoordinator…

  public synchronized void addKeyToTransaction(TransactionRef transactionRef, String key) {
      TransactionMetadata metadata = transactions.get(transactionRef);
      if (!metadata.getParticipatingKeys().accommodates(key)) {

The cluster node dealing with the request detects that the request is a part of a
transaction with the transaction ID. It manages the state of the transaction,
the place it shops the important thing and the worth within the request. The important thing values will not be
immediately made obtainable to the important thing worth retailer, however saved individually.

class TransactionalKVStore…

  public void put(TransactionRef transactionRef, String key, String worth) {
      TransactionState state = getOrCreateTransactionState(transactionRef);
      state.addPendingUpdates(key, worth);

Locks and Transaction Isolation

The requests additionally take a lock on the keys.
Significantly, the get requests take a learn lock and
the put requests take a write lock. The learn locks are taken because the
values are learn.

class TransactionalKVStore…

  public CompletableFuture<String> get(TransactionRef txn, String key) {
      CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture
              = lockManager.purchase(txn, key, LockMode.READ);
      return lockFuture.thenApply(transactionRef -> {
          return kv.get(key);

  synchronized TransactionState getOrCreateTransactionState(TransactionRef txnRef) {
      TransactionState state = this.ongoingTransactions.get(txnRef);
      if (state == null) {
          state = new TransactionState();
          this.ongoingTransactions.put(txnRef, state);
      return state;

The write locks might be taken solely when the transaction is about to commit
and the values are to be made seen in the important thing worth retailer. Till then, the
cluster node can simply monitor the modified values as pending operations.

Delaying locking decreases the probabilities of conflicting transactions.

class TransactionalKVStore…

  public void put(TransactionRef transactionRef, String key, String worth) {
      TransactionState state = getOrCreateTransactionState(transactionRef);
      state.addPendingUpdates(key, worth);

It is very important notice that the locks are lengthy lived and never launched
when the request completes. They’re launched solely when the transaction commits.
This method of holding locks at some point of the transaction
and releasing them solely when the transaction commits or rolls again is
known as two-phase-locking.
Two-phase locking is important in offering the serializable isolation stage.
Serializable that means that the results of the transactions are seen as
if they’re executed separately.

Impasse Prevention

Utilization of locks may cause deadlocks the place two transactions await
one another to launch the locks. Deadlocks might be averted if transactions
will not be allowed to attend and aborted when the conflicts are detected.
There are totally different methods used to resolve which transactions are
aborted and that are allowed to proceed.

The lock supervisor implements these wait insurance policies as follows:

class LockManager…

  WaitPolicy waitPolicy;

The WaitPolicy decides what to do when there are conflicting requests.

public enum WaitPolicy {

The lock is an object which tracks the transactions which at present
personal the lock and those that are ready for the lock.

class Lock…

  Queue<LockRequest> waitQueue = new LinkedList<>();
  Record<TransactionRef> homeowners = new ArrayList<>();
  LockMode lockMode;

When a transaction requests to accumulate a lock, the lock supervisor grants
the lock instantly if there are not any conflicting transactions already
proudly owning the lock.

class LockManager…

  public synchronized CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> purchase(TransactionRef txn, String key, LockMode lockMode) {
      return purchase(txn, key, lockMode, new CompletableFuture<>());

  CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> purchase(TransactionRef txnRef,
                                            String key,
                                            LockMode askedLockMode,
                                            CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture) {
      Lock lock = getOrCreateLock(key);

      logger.debug("buying lock for = " + txnRef + " on key = " + key + " with lock mode = " + askedLockMode);
      if (lock.isCompatible(txnRef, askedLockMode)) {
          lock.addOwner(txnRef, askedLockMode);
          logger.debug("acquired lock for = " + txnRef);
          return lockFuture;

class Lock…

  public boolean isCompatible(TransactionRef txnRef, LockMode lockMode) {
      if(hasOwner())  isUpgrade(txnRef, lockMode);
      return true;

If there are conflicts,
the lock supervisor acts relying on the wait coverage.

Error On Battle

If the wait coverage is to error out, it’ll throw an error and the calling
transaction will rollback and retry after a random timeout.

class LockManager…

  non-public CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> handleConflict(Lock lock,
                                                           TransactionRef txnRef,
                                                           String key,
                                                           LockMode askedLockMode,
                                                           CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture) {
      change (waitPolicy) {
          case Error: {
              lockFuture.completeExceptionally(new WriteConflictException(txnRef, key, lock.homeowners));
              return lockFuture;
          case WoundWait: {
              return lock.woundWait(txnRef, key, askedLockMode, lockFuture, this);
          case WaitDie: {
              return lock.waitDie(txnRef, key, askedLockMode, lockFuture, this);
      throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unknown waitPolicy " + waitPolicy);

In case of competition when there are quite a lot of person transactions
attempting to accumulate locks, if all of them must restart, it severely
limits the techniques throughput.
Knowledge shops attempt to guarantee that there are minimal transaction restarts.

A standard method is to assign a singular ID to transactions and order
them. For instance, Spanner assigns unique IDs to transactions
in such a manner that they are often ordered.
The method is similar to the one mentioned in
Paxos to order requests throughout cluster nodes.
As soon as the transactions might be ordered, there are two methods used
to keep away from impasse, however nonetheless permit transactions to proceed with out

The transaction reference is created in such a manner that it may be
in contrast and ordered with different transaction references. The simplest
methodology is to assign a timestamp to every transaction and examine primarily based
on the timestamp.

class TransactionRef…

  boolean after(TransactionRef otherTransactionRef) {
      return this.startTimestamp > otherTransactionRef.startTimestamp;

However in distributed techniques,

wall clocks are not monotonic
, so a distinct methodology like
assigning distinctive IDs to transactions in such a manner that
they are often ordered is used. Together with ordered IDs, the age of every
is tracked to have the ability to order the transactions.
Spanner orders transactions by monitoring the age of every
transaction within the system.

To have the ability to order all of the transactions, every cluster node is assigned
a singular ID. The consumer picks up the coordinator initially of
the transaction and will get the transaction ID from the coordinator
The cluster node appearing as a coordinator generates transaction
IDs as follows.

class TransactionCoordinator…

  non-public int requestId;
  public MonotonicId start() {
      return new MonotonicId(requestId++, config.getServerId());

class MonotonicId…

  public class MonotonicId implements Comparable<MonotonicId> {
      public int requestId;
      int serverId;
      public MonotonicId(int requestId, int serverId) {
          this.serverId = serverId;
          this.requestId = requestId;
      public static MonotonicId empty() {
          return new MonotonicId(-1, -1);
      public boolean isAfter(MonotonicId different) {
          if (this.requestId == different.requestId) {
              return this.serverId > different.serverId;
          return this.requestId > different.requestId;

class TransactionClient…

  non-public void beginTransaction(String key) {
      if (coordinator == null) {
          coordinator = replicaMapper.serverFor(key);
          MonotonicId transactionId = coordinator.start();
          transactionRef = new TransactionRef(transactionId, clock.nanoTime());

The consumer tracks the age of the transaction by recording
the elapsed time because the starting of the transaction.

class TransactionRef…

  public void incrementAge(SystemClock clock) {
      age = clock.nanoTime() - startTimestamp;

The consumer increments the age, each time a get or a put request
is distributed to the servers. The transactions are then ordered as
per their age. The transaction id is used to interrupt the ties when
there are similar age transactions.

class TransactionRef…

  public boolean isAfter(TransactionRef different) {
       return age == different.age?
                  :this.age > different.age;

Within the wound-wait methodology, if there’s a battle,
the transaction reference asking for the lock is in comparison with all of the
transactions at present proudly owning the lock. If the lock homeowners are all
youthful than the transaction asking for the lock, all of these transactions are aborted.
But when the transaction asking the lock is youthful than those proudly owning
the transaction, it waits for the lock

class Lock…

  public CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> woundWait(TransactionRef txnRef,
                                                     String key,
                                                     LockMode askedLockMode,
                                                     CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture,
                                                     LockManager lockManager) {

      if (allOwningTransactionsStartedAfter(txnRef) && !anyOwnerIsPrepared(lockManager)) {
          abortAllOwners(lockManager, key, txnRef);
          return lockManager.purchase(txnRef, key, askedLockMode, lockFuture);

      LockRequest lockRequest = new LockRequest(txnRef, key, askedLockMode, lockFuture);
      lockManager.logger.debug("Including to attend queue = " + lockRequest);
      return lockFuture;

class Lock…

  non-public boolean allOwningTransactionsStartedAfter(TransactionRef txn) {
      return -> !o.equals(txn)).allMatch(proprietor -> proprietor.after(txn));

One of many key issues to note is that if the transaction proudly owning
the lock is already within the ready state of two-phase-commit, it’s
not aborted.


The wait-die methodology works within the reverse manner
to wound-wait.
If the lock homeowners are all youthful than the transaction
asking for the lock, then the transaction waits for the lock.
But when the transaction asking for the lock is youthful than those proudly owning
the transaction, the transaction is aborted.

class Lock…

  public CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> waitDie(TransactionRef txnRef,
                                                   String key,
                                                   LockMode askedLockMode,
                                                   CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture,
                                                   LockManager lockManager) {
      if (allOwningTransactionsStartedAfter(txnRef)) {
          addToWaitQueue(new LockRequest(txnRef, key, askedLockMode, lockFuture));
          return lockFuture;

      lockManager.abort(txnRef, key);
      lockFuture.completeExceptionally(new WriteConflictException(txnRef, key, homeowners));
      return lockFuture;

Wound-wait mechanism usually has
fewer restarts
in comparison with the wait-die methodology.
So knowledge shops like Spanner use the wound-wait

When the proprietor of the transaction releases a lock,
the ready transactions are granted the lock.

class LockManager…

  non-public void launch(TransactionRef txn, String key) {
      Non-obligatory<Lock> lock = getLock(key);
      lock.ifPresent(l -> {
          l.launch(txn, this);

class Lock…

  public void launch(TransactionRef txn, LockManager lockManager) {
      if (hasWaiters()) {
          LockRequest lockRequest = getFirst(lockManager.waitPolicy);
          lockManager.purchase(lockRequest.txn, lockRequest.key, lockRequest.lockMode, lockRequest.future);

Commit and Rollback

As soon as the consumer efficiently reads with out going through any conflicts and
writes all the important thing values, it initiates the commit request by sending
a commit request to the coordinator.

class TransactionClient…

  public CompletableFuture<Boolean> commit() {
      return coordinator.commit(transactionRef);

The transaction coordinator information the state of the transaction as
getting ready to commit. The coordinator implements the commit dealing with in
two phases.

  • It first sends the put together request to every of the individuals.
  • As soon as it receives a profitable response from all of the individuals,
    the coordinator marks the transaction as ready to finish.
    Then it sends the commit request to all of the individuals.

class TransactionCoordinator…

  public CompletableFuture<Boolean> commit(TransactionRef transactionRef)  {
      TransactionMetadata metadata = transactions.get(transactionRef);
      Record<CompletableFuture<Boolean>> allPrepared = sendPrepareRequestToParticipants(transactionRef);
      CompletableFuture<Record<Boolean>> futureList = sequence(allPrepared);
      return futureList.thenApply(end result -> {
          if (!end -> r)) {
              logger.information("Rolling again = " + transactionRef);
              return false;
          return true;

  public Record<CompletableFuture<Boolean>> sendPrepareRequestToParticipants(TransactionRef transactionRef)  {
      TransactionMetadata transactionMetadata = transactions.get(transactionRef);
      var transactionParticipants = getParticipants(transactionMetadata.getParticipatingKeys());
      return transactionParticipants.keySet()
              .map(server -> server.handlePrepare(transactionRef))

  non-public void sendCommitMessageToParticipants(TransactionRef transactionRef) {
      TransactionMetadata transactionMetadata = transactions.get(transactionRef);
      var participantsForKeys = getParticipants(transactionMetadata.getParticipatingKeys());
              .forEach(kvStore -> {
                  Record<String> keys = participantsForKeys.get(kvStore);
                  kvStore.handleCommit(transactionRef, keys);

  non-public Map<TransactionalKVStore, Record<String>> getParticipants(Record<String> participatingKeys) {
              .map(okay -> Pair.of(serverFor(okay), okay))
              .gather(Collectors.groupingBy(Pair::getKey, Collectors.mapping(Pair::getValue, Collectors.toList())));

The cluster node receiving the put together requests do two issues:

  • It tries to seize the write locks for all the keys.
  • As soon as profitable, it writes all the adjustments to the write-ahead log.

If it could efficiently do these,
it could assure that there are not any conflicting transactions,
and even within the case of a crash the cluster node can get well all of the
required state to finish the transaction.

class TransactionalKVStore…

  public synchronized CompletableFuture<Boolean> handlePrepare(TransactionRef txn) {
      attempt {
          TransactionState state = getTransactionState(txn);
          if (state.isPrepared()) {
              return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(true); //already ready.

          if (state.isAborted()) {
              return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(false); //aborted by one other transaction.

          Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates = state.getPendingUpdates();
          CompletableFuture<Boolean> prepareFuture = prepareUpdates(txn, pendingUpdates);
          return prepareFuture.thenApply(ignored -> {
              Map<String, Lock> locksHeldByTxn = lockManager.getAllLocksFor(txn);
              writeToWAL(new TransactionMarker(txn, locksHeldByTxn, TransactionStatus.PREPARED));
              return true;

      } catch (TransactionException| WriteConflictException e) {
      return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(false);

  non-public CompletableFuture<Boolean> prepareUpdates(TransactionRef txn, Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates)  {
      if (pendingUpdates.isPresent()) {
          Map<String, String> pendingKVs = pendingUpdates.get();
          CompletableFuture<Record<TransactionRef>> lockFuture = acquireLocks(txn, pendingKVs.keySet());
          return lockFuture.thenApply(ignored -> {
              writeToWAL(txn, pendingKVs);
              return true;
      return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(true);

  TransactionState getTransactionState(TransactionRef txnRef) {
      return ongoingTransactions.get(txnRef);

  non-public void writeToWAL(TransactionRef txn, Map<String, String> pendingUpdates) {
     for (String key : pendingUpdates.keySet()) {
          String worth = pendingUpdates.get(key);
          wal.writeEntry(new SetValueCommand(txn, key, worth).serialize());

  non-public CompletableFuture<Record<TransactionRef>> acquireLocks(TransactionRef txn, Set<String> keys) {
      Record<CompletableFuture<TransactionRef>> lockFutures = new ArrayList<>();
      for (String key : keys) {
          CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture = lockManager.purchase(txn, key, LockMode.READWRITE);
      return sequence(lockFutures);

When the cluster node receives the commit message from the coordinator,
it’s secure to make the key-value adjustments seen.
The cluster node does three issues whereas committing the adjustments:

  • It marks the transaction as dedicated. Ought to the cluster node fail at this level,
    it is aware of the end result of the transaction, and might repeat the next steps.
  • It applies all of the adjustments to the key-value storage
  • It releases all of the acquired locks.

class TransactionalKVStore…

  public synchronized void handleCommit(TransactionRef transactionRef, Record<String> keys) {
      if (!ongoingTransactions.containsKey(transactionRef)) {
          return; //it is a no-op. Already dedicated.

      if (!lockManager.hasLocksFor(transactionRef, keys)) {
          throw new IllegalStateException("Transaction " + transactionRef + " ought to maintain all of the required locks for keys " + keys);

      writeToWAL(new TransactionMarker(transactionRef, TransactionStatus.COMMITTED, keys));


      releaseLocks(transactionRef, keys);

  non-public void removeTransactionState(TransactionRef txnRef) {
      ongoingTransactions.take away(txnRef);

  non-public void applyPendingUpdates(TransactionRef txnRef) {
      TransactionState state = getTransactionState(txnRef);
      Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates = state.getPendingUpdates();
      apply(txnRef, pendingUpdates);

  non-public void apply(TransactionRef txnRef, Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates) {
      if (pendingUpdates.isPresent()) {
          Map<String, String> pendingKv = pendingUpdates.get();

  non-public void apply(Map<String, String> pendingKv) {
      for (String key : pendingKv.keySet()) {
          String worth = pendingKv.get(key);
          kv.put(key, worth);
  non-public void releaseLocks(TransactionRef txn, Record<String> keys) {
          lockManager.launch(txn, keys);

  non-public Lengthy writeToWAL(TransactionMarker transactionMarker) {
     return wal.writeEntry(transactionMarker.serialize());

The rollback is carried out in an identical manner. If there’s any failure,
the consumer communicates with the coordinator to rollback the transaction.

class TransactionClient…

  public void rollback() {

The transaction coordinator information the state of the transaction as getting ready
to rollback. Then it forwards the rollback request to all the servers
which saved the values for the given transaction.
As soon as all the requests are profitable, the coordinator marks the transaction
rollback as full.In case the coordinator crashes after the transaction
is marked as ‘ready to rollback’, it could carry on sending the rollback
messages to all of the taking part cluster nodes.

class TransactionCoordinator…

  public void rollback(TransactionRef transactionRef) {



  non-public void sendRollbackMessageToParticipants(TransactionRef transactionRef) {
      TransactionMetadata transactionMetadata = transactions.get(transactionRef);
      var individuals = getParticipants(transactionMetadata.getParticipatingKeys());
      for (TransactionalKVStore kvStore : individuals.keySet()) {
          Record<String> keys = individuals.get(kvStore);
          kvStore.handleRollback(transactionMetadata.getTxn(), keys);

The cluster nodes receiving the rollback request does three issues:

  • It information the state of the transaction as rolled again within the write-ahead log.
  • It discards the transaction state.
  • It releases all the locks

class TransactionalKVStore…

  public synchronized void handleRollback(TransactionRef transactionRef, Record<String> keys) {
      if (!ongoingTransactions.containsKey(transactionRef)) {
          return; //no-op. Already rolled again.
      writeToWAL(new TransactionMarker(transactionRef, TransactionStatus.ROLLED_BACK, keys));
      this.ongoingTransactions.take away(transactionRef);
      this.lockManager.launch(transactionRef, keys);

Idempotent Operations

In case of community failures, the coordinator can retry calls to
put together, commit or abort. So these operations must be

An Instance State of affairs

Atomic Writes

Contemplate the next situation. Paula Blue has a truck and Steven Inexperienced
has a backhoe.
The supply and the reserving standing of the truck and the backhoe
are saved on a distributed key-value retailer.
Relying on how the keys are mapped to servers,
Blue’s truck and Inexperienced’s backhoe bookings are saved on
separate cluster nodes.
Alice is attempting to ebook a truck
and backhoe for the development work she is planning to begin on a Monday.
She wants each the truck and the backhoe to be obtainable.

The reserving situation occurs as follows.

Alice checks the provision of Blue’s truck and Inexperienced’s backhoe.
by studying the keys ‘truck_booking_monday’ and ‘backhoe_booking_monday’

If the values are empty, the reserving is free.
She reserves the truck and the backhoe.
It’s important that each the values are set atomically.
If there’s any failure, then not one of the values is ready.

The commit occurs in two phases. The primary server Alice
contacts acts because the coordinator and executes the 2 phases.

The coordinator is a separate participant within the
protocol, and is proven that manner on the sequence diagram. Nonetheless
often one of many servers (Blue or Inexperienced) acts as
the coordinator, thus enjoying two roles within the interplay.

Conflicting Transactions

Contemplate a situation the place one other particular person, Bob, can also be attempting to ebook a
truck and backhoe for development work on the identical Monday.

The reserving situation occurs as follows:

  • Each Alice and Bob learn the keys ‘truck_booking_monday’
    and ‘backhoe_booking_monday’
  • Each see that the values are empty, that means the reserving is free.
  • Each attempt to ebook the truck and the backhoe.

The expectation is that, solely Alice or Bob, ought to be capable of ebook,
as a result of the transactions are conflicting.
In case of errors, the entire circulation must be retried and hopefully,
one will go forward with the reserving.
However in no state of affairs, ought to reserving be performed partially.
Both each bookings needs to be performed or neither is completed.

To test the provision, each Alice and Bob begin a transaction
and speak to Blue and Inexperienced’s servers respectively to test for the provision.
Blue holds a learn lock for the important thing “truck_booking_on_monday” and
Inexperienced holds a learn lock for the important thing “backhoe_booking_on_monday”.
As a result of learn locks are shared, each Alice and Bob can learn the values.

Alice and Bob see that each the bookings can be found on Monday.
So that they reserve by sending the put requests to servers.
Each the servers maintain the put requests within the momentary storage.

When Alice and Bob resolve to commit the transactions-
assuming that Blue acts as a coordinator- it triggers the two-phase
commit protocol and sends the put together requests to itself and Inexperienced.

For Alice’s request it tries to seize a write lock for the important thing ‘truck_booking_on_monday’, which
it can’t get, as a result of there’s a conflicting learn lock grabbed by
one other transaction. So Alice’s transaction fails within the put together section.
The identical factor occurs with Bob’s request.

Transactions might be retried with a retry loop as follows:

class TransactionExecutor…

  public boolean executeWithRetry(Operate<TransactionClient, Boolean> txnMethod, ReplicaMapper replicaMapper, SystemClock systemClock) {
      for (int try = 1; try <= maxRetries; try++) {
          TransactionClient consumer = new TransactionClient(replicaMapper, systemClock);
          attempt {
              boolean checkPassed = txnMethod.apply(consumer);
              Boolean successfullyCommitted = consumer.commit().get();
              return checkPassed && successfullyCommitted;
          } catch (Exception e) {
              logger.error("Write battle detected whereas executing." + consumer.transactionRef + " Retrying try " + try);
              randomWait(); //await random interval

      return false;

The instance reserving code for Alice and Bob will look as follows:

class TransactionalKVStoreTest…

  public void retryWhenConflict()  (!aliceTxn.isSuccess() && bobTxn.isSuccess()), "ready for one txn to finish", Length.ofSeconds(50));

  non-public TransactionExecutor bookTransactionally(Record<TransactionalKVStore> allServers, String person, SystemClock systemClock) {
      Record<String> bookingKeys = Arrays.asList("truck_booking_on_monday", "backhoe_booking_on_monday");
      TransactionExecutor t1 = new TransactionExecutor(allServers);
      t1.executeAsyncWithRetry(txnClient -> {
          if (txnClient.isAvailable(bookingKeys)) {
              txnClient.reserve(bookingKeys, person);
              return true;
          return false;
      }, systemClock);
      return t1;

On this case one of many transactions will finally succeed and
the opposite will again out.

Whereas it is rather straightforward to implement, with Error WaitPolicy ,
there will probably be a number of transaction restarts,lowering the general
As defined within the above part, if Wound-Wait coverage is used
it’ll have fewer transaction restarts. Within the above instance,
just one transaction will probably restart as a substitute of each restarting
in case of conflicts.

Utilizing Versioned Value

It is rather constraining to have conflicts for all of the learn and write
operations, notably so when the transactions might be read-only.
It’s optimum if read-only transactions can work with out holding any
locks and nonetheless assure that the values learn in a transaction
don’t change with a concurrent read-write transaction.

Knowledge-stores usually retailer a number of variations of the values,
as described in Versioned Value.
The model used is the timestamp following Lamport Clock.
Principally a Hybrid Clock is utilized in databases like
MongoDB or CockroachDB.
To make use of it with the two-phase commit protocol, the trick is that each server
taking part within the transaction sends the timestamp it could write the
values at, as response to the put together request.
The coordinator chooses the utmost of those timestamps as a
commit timestamp and sends it together with the worth.
The taking part servers then save the worth on the commit timestamp.
This enables read-only requests to be executed with out holding locks,
as a result of it is assured that the worth written at a specific timestamp
is rarely going to alter.

Contemplate a easy instance as follows. Philip is operating a report back to learn
all the bookings that occurred till timestamp 2. If it’s a long-running
operation holding a lock, Alice, who’s attempting to ebook a truck, will probably be blocked
till Philip’s work completes. With Versioned Value
Philip’s get requests, that are a part of a read-only operation, can proceed
at timestamp 2, whereas Alice’s reserving continues at timestamp 4.

Be aware that learn requests that are a part of a read-write transaction,
nonetheless want to carry a lock.

The instance code with Lamport Clock appears to be like as follows:

class MvccTransactionalKVStore…

  public String readOnlyGet(String key, lengthy readTimestamp) {
      return kv.get(new VersionedKey(key, readTimestamp));

  public CompletableFuture<String> get(TransactionRef txn, String key, lengthy readTimestamp) {
      CompletableFuture<TransactionRef> lockFuture = lockManager.purchase(txn, key, LockMode.READ);
      return lockFuture.thenApply(transactionRef -> {
          return kv.get(key);

  non-public void adjustServerTimestamp(lengthy readTimestamp) {
      this.timestamp = readTimestamp > this.timestamp ? readTimestamp:timestamp;

  public void put(TransactionRef txnId, String key, String worth) {
      timestamp = timestamp + 1;
      TransactionState transactionState = getOrCreateTransactionState(txnId);
      transactionState.addPendingUpdates(key, worth);

class MvccTransactionalKVStore…

  non-public lengthy put together(TransactionRef txn, Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates) throws WriteConflictException, IOException {
      if (pendingUpdates.isPresent()) {
          Map<String, String> pendingKVs = pendingUpdates.get();

          acquireLocks(txn, pendingKVs);

          timestamp = timestamp + 1; //increment the timestamp for write operation.

          writeToWAL(txn, pendingKVs, timestamp);
      return timestamp;

class MvccTransactionCoordinator…

  public lengthy commit(TransactionRef txn) {
          lengthy commitTimestamp = put together(txn);

          TransactionMetadata transactionMetadata = transactions.get(txn);
          transactionMetadata.markPreparedToCommit(commitTimestamp, this.transactionLog);

          sendCommitMessageToAllTheServers(txn, commitTimestamp, transactionMetadata.getParticipatingKeys());


          return commitTimestamp;

  public lengthy put together(TransactionRef txn) throws WriteConflictException {
      TransactionMetadata transactionMetadata = transactions.get(txn);
      Map<MvccTransactionalKVStore, Record<String>> keysToServers = getParticipants(transactionMetadata.getParticipatingKeys());
      Record<Lengthy> prepareTimestamps = new ArrayList<>();
      for (MvccTransactionalKVStore retailer : keysToServers.keySet()) {
          Record<String> keys = keysToServers.get(retailer);
          lengthy prepareTimestamp = retailer.put together(txn, keys);

All of the taking part cluster nodes then retailer the key-values on the
commit timestamp.

class MvccTransactionalKVStore…

  public void commit(TransactionRef txn, Record<String> keys, lengthy commitTimestamp) {
      if (!lockManager.hasLocksFor(txn, keys)) {
          throw new IllegalStateException("Transaction ought to maintain all of the required locks");


      applyPendingOperations(txn, commitTimestamp);

      lockManager.launch(txn, keys);

      logTransactionMarker(new TransactionMarker(txn, TransactionStatus.COMMITTED, commitTimestamp, keys, Collections.EMPTY_MAP));

  non-public void applyPendingOperations(TransactionRef txnId, lengthy commitTimestamp) {
      Non-obligatory<TransactionState> transactionState = getTransactionState(txnId);
      if (transactionState.isPresent()) {
          TransactionState t = transactionState.get();
          Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates = t.getPendingUpdates();
          apply(txnId, pendingUpdates, commitTimestamp);

  non-public void apply(TransactionRef txnId, Non-obligatory<Map<String, String>> pendingUpdates, lengthy commitTimestamp) {
      if (pendingUpdates.isPresent()) {
          Map<String, String> pendingKv = pendingUpdates.get();
          apply(pendingKv, commitTimestamp);
      ongoingTransactions.take away(txnId);

  non-public void apply(Map<String, String> pendingKv, lengthy commitTimestamp) {
      for (String key : pendingKv.keySet()) {
          String worth = pendingKv.get(key);
          kv.put(new VersionedKey(key, commitTimestamp), worth);

Technical Issues

There may be one other refined challenge to be tackled right here.
As soon as a specific response is returned at a given timestamp,
no write ought to occur at a decrease timestamp than the one obtained in
the learn request.
That is achieved by totally different methods.
Google Percolator and
datastores like TiKV impressed by
Percolator use a separate server known as Timestamp oracle which is
assured to provide monotonic timestamps.
Databases like MongoDB or CockroachDB
use Hybrid Clock to
assure it as a result of each request will modify the hybrid clock
on every server to be probably the most up-todate. The timestamp can also be
superior monotonically with each write request.
Lastly, the commit section picks up the utmost timestamp throughout the set
of taking part servers, ensuring that the write will all the time
observe a earlier learn request.

It is very important notice that, if the consumer is studying
at a timestamp worth decrease than the one at which server is writing to,
it isn’t a problem. But when the consumer is studying at a timestamp whereas the server
is about to jot down at a specific timestamp, then it’s a downside. If servers
detect {that a} consumer is studying at a timestamp which the server might need
an in-flight writes (those that are solely ready), the servers reject
the write. CockroachDB throws error an if a learn occurs at
a timestamp for which there’s an ongoing transaction.
Spanner reads have a section the place the consumer will get the
time of the final profitable write on a specific partition. If a
consumer reads at a better timestamp, the learn requests wait until the writes
occur at that timestamp.

Utilizing Replicated Log

To enhance fault tolerance cluster nodes use Replicated Log.
The coordinator makes use of Replicated Log to retailer the transaction log entries.

Contemplating the instance of Alice and Bob within the above part,
the Blue servers will probably be a gaggle of servers, so are the Inexperienced servers.
All of the reserving knowledge will probably be replicated throughout a set of servers.
Every request which is a part of the two-phase commit goes to the chief
of the server group. The replication is carried out utilizing
Replicated Log.

The consumer communicates with the chief of every server group.
The replication is important solely when the consumer decides to commit the
transaction, so it occurs as a part of the put together request.

The coordinator replicates each state change to replicated log as nicely.

In a distributed datastore, every cluster node handles a number of partitions.
A Replicated Log is maintained per partition.
When Raft is used as a part of replication it is typically
known as multi-raft.

Consumer communicates with the chief of every partition taking part in
the transaction.

Failure Dealing with

Two-phase commit protocol closely depends on the coordinator node
to speak the end result of the transaction.
Till the end result of the transaction is understood,
the person cluster nodes can not permit every other transactions
to jot down to the keys taking part within the pending transaction.
The cluster nodes block till the end result of the transaction is understood.
This places some important necessities on the coordinator

The coordinator wants to recollect the state of the transactions
even in case of a course of crash.

Coordinator makes use of Write-Ahead Log to report each replace
to the state of the transaction.
This manner, when the coordinator crashes and comes again up,
it could proceed to work on the transactions that are incomplete.

class TransactionCoordinator…

  public void loadTransactionsFromWAL() throws IOException {
      Record<WALEntry> walEntries = this.transactionLog.readAll();
      for (WALEntry walEntry : walEntries) {
          TransactionMetadata txnMetadata = (TransactionMetadata) Command.deserialize(new ByteArrayInputStream(walEntry.getData()));
          transactions.put(txnMetadata.getTxn(), txnMetadata);
  non-public void completePreparedTransactions() throws IOException {
      Record<Map.Entry<TransactionRef, TransactionMetadata>> preparedTransactions
              = transactions.entrySet().stream().filter(entry -> entry.getValue().isPrepared()).gather(Collectors.toList());
      for (Map.Entry<TransactionRef, TransactionMetadata> preparedTransaction : preparedTransactions) {
          TransactionMetadata txnMetadata = preparedTransaction.getValue();

The consumer can fail earlier than sending the commit message to the coordinator.

The transaction coordinator tracks when every transaction state was up to date.
If no state replace is obtained in a timeout interval, which is configured,
it triggers a transaction rollback.

class TransactionCoordinator…

  non-public ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor scheduler = new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(1);
  non-public ScheduledFuture<?> taskFuture;
  non-public lengthy transactionTimeoutMs = Lengthy.MAX_VALUE; //for now.

  public void startTransactionTimeoutScheduler() {
      taskFuture = scheduler.scheduleAtFixedRate(() -> timeoutTransactions(),

  non-public void timeoutTransactions() {
      for (TransactionRef txnRef : transactions.keySet()) {
          TransactionMetadata transactionMetadata = transactions.get(txnRef);
          lengthy now = systemClock.nanoTime();
          if (transactionMetadata.hasTimedOut(now)) {

Transactions throughout heterogenous techniques

The answer outlined right here demonstrates the two-phase commit implementation
in a homogenous system. Homogenous that means all of the cluster nodes are half
of the identical system and retailer similar sort of knowledge. For instance
a distributed knowledge retailer like MongoDb or a distributed message dealer
like Kafka.

Traditionally, two-phase commit was largely mentioned within the context of
heterogeneous techniques. Commonest utilization of two-phase commit was
with [XA] transactions. Within the J2EE servers, it is rather
frequent to make use of two-phase commit throughout a message dealer and a database.
The most typical utilization sample is when a message must be produced
on a message dealer like ActiveMQ or JMS and a report must be
inserted/up to date in a database.

As seen within the above sections, the fault tolerance of the coordinator
performs a important function in two-phase commit implementation. In case of XA
transactions the coordinator is generally the applying course of making
the database and message dealer calls. The applying in most trendy
eventualities is a stateless microservice which is operating in a containerized
atmosphere. It’s not actually an acceptable place to place the accountability
of the coordinator. The coordinator wants to take care of state and get well
rapidly from failures to commit or rollback, which is troublesome to
implement on this case.

That is the explanation that whereas XA transactions appear so engaging, they
usually run into issues
in practice
and are averted. Within the microservices
world, patterns like [transactional-outbox] are most well-liked over
XA transactions.

Alternatively most distributed storage techniques implement
two-phase commit throughout a set of partitions, and it really works nicely in apply.

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply
Enable registration in settings - general