Transcription of The Case for Shared Nothing - Berkeley Database Research
{{id}} {{{paragraph}}}
Example: stock market
The Case for Shared Nothing - Berkeley Database Research
The Case for Shared NothingMichael StonebrakerUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, are three dominent themes in building high transaction rate multiprocessor systems, namelyshared memory ( Synapse, IBM/AP configurations), Shared disk ( VAX/cluster, any multi-porteddisk system), and Shared Nothing ( Tandem, Tolerant). This paper argues that Shared Nothing is the pre-ferred INTRODUCTIONThe three most commonly mentioned architectures for multiprocessor high transaction rate systemsare: Shared memory (SM), multiple processors Shared a common central memoryshared disk (SD), multiple processors each with private memory share acommon collection of disksshared Nothing (SN), neither memory nor peripheral storage is Shared among processorsThere are several commerical examples of each architecture. In this paper we argue that SN is the mostcost effective alternative. In Section 2 we present a "back of the envelope" comparison of the in Sections 3 through 5 we discuss in more detail some of the points of A SIMPLE ANALYSISIn Table 1 we compare each of the architectures on a collection of 12 points.
The Case for Shared Nothing Michael Stonebraker University of California Berkeley, Ca. ABSTRACT There are three dominent themes in building high transaction rate multiprocessor systems, namely
Information
Domain:
Source:
Link to this page:
Please notify us if you found a problem with this document: