Distributed Data Coordination Mechanisms for Large Data Clusters
-
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67228/30715717/IJDEIC-2019PI2Q4YPublished 03-11-2019
Distributed Systems, Data Clusters, Coordination Mechanisms, Consensus Algorithms, Paxos, Raft, Data Consistency, Fault Tolerance, CAP Theorem, Distributed Locking Issue
Section
ArticlesHow to Cite
[1]M. Gonzalez, “Distributed Data Coordination Mechanisms for Large Data Clusters”, IJDEIC, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 01–15, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.67228/30715717/IJDEIC-2019PI2Q4Y.Abstract
The rapid growth of applications like social media, IoT, and enterprise systems has led to the need for large-scale distributed data clusters. These clusters face challenges such as data consistency, fault tolerance, scalability, latency, and synchronization. Distributed data coordination mechanisms address these issues by enabling reliable communication and system robustness across nodes. This paper reviews coordination approaches developed before 2018, including centralized, decentralized, and hybrid models. It examines key techniques such as consensus algorithms (Paxos, Raft), distributed locking, leader election, and coordination services like ZooKeeper. These are evaluated based on performance, scalability, consistency, and fault tolerance. The study also explores data replication strategies and consistency models (strong, eventual, and causal), along with trade-offs described by the CAP theorem. It highlights coordination overhead and optimization techniques like batching, asynchronous communication, and partitioning. Results show that decentralized and hybrid approaches offer better scalability and fault tolerance, while consensus algorithms ensure strong consistency but increase latency. Eventual consistency improves performance but allows temporary inconsistencies. The paper concludes with future directions, including adaptive coordination and machine learning-based optimization.
References
[1] Lamport, L. (1998). The Part-Time Parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems.
[2] Lamport, L. (2001). Paxos Made Simple. ACM SIGACT News.
[3] Ongaro, D., & Ousterhout, J. (2014). In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm (Raft). USENIX Annual Technical Conference.
[4] Burrows, M. (2006). The Chubby Lock Service for Loosely-Coupled Distributed Systems. OSDI.
[5] Hunt, P., Konar, M., Junqueira, F. P., & Reed, B. (2010). ZooKeeper: Wait-free Coordination for Internet-scale Systems. USENIX ATC.
[6] etcd Authors (2013). etcd: A Distributed, Reliable Key-Value Store for the Most Critical Data. CoreOS Documentation.
[7] Tanenbaum, A. S., & Van Steen, M. (2017). Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms. Prentice Hall.
[8] Coulouris, G., Dollimore, J., Kindberg, T., & Blair, G. (2011). Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design. Addison-Wesley.
[9] Brewer, E. A. (2000). Towards Robust Distributed Systems (CAP Theorem). PODC Keynote.
[10] Gilbert, S., & Lynch, N. (2002). Brewer’s Conjecture and the Feasibility of Consistent, Available, Partition-Tolerant Web Services. ACM SIGACT News.
[11] Vogels, W. (2009). Eventually Consistent. Communications of the ACM.
[12] Terry, D. B., et al. (1994). Session Guarantees for Weakly Consistent Replicated Data. IEEE.
[13] Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., & Paterson, M. S. (1985). Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process (FLP Result). Journal of the ACM.
[14] DeCandia, G., et al. (2007). Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-value Store. SOSP.
[15] Oki, B. M., & Liskov, B. (1988). Viewstamped Replication: A New Primary Copy Method to Support Highly-Available Distributed Systems. ACM PODC.
Downloads
How to Cite
[1]M. Gonzalez, “Distributed Data Coordination Mechanisms for Large Data Clusters”, IJDEIC, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 01–15, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.67228/30715717/IJDEIC-2019PI2Q4Y.