W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Proposal: WebDAV and transactions

From: Babich, Alan <ABabich@filenet.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:04:06 -0700
Message-ID: <C3AF5E329E21D2119C4C00805F6FF58F08FE5E58@hq-expo2.filenet.com>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org



-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 5:14 AM
To: Eric Sedlar
Cc: Babich, Alan; 'Julian Reschke'; Pill, Juergen; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: WebDAV and transactions

...snip...

>> In the spirit of that analogy, I
>> am proposing that the entire transaction, conditional processing and all,
>> should be invoked by one method call. That would do a lot to help protect
>> the performance of the system.

It would do nothing to help protect the performance of the system.
There is no effective difference between a sequence of requests with
time-outs per request and a batch request with time-outs per read.
The server still has to accumulate requests in storage and is
subject to the same service problems with stateful behavior.

...snip...

....Roy

That's completely false. 

Last first. The only way to eliminate state on the server that must be
maintained between method calls ("stateful behavior") is to do the entire
transaction during one method call. Period.

Going over the network multiple times for multiple method calls clearly
consumes more computing resources and elapsed time than making a single
method call. There is more overhead on the client (which doesn't matter) and
the server (which matters a lot). That's really obvious.

But where client application programmers can really kill the performance of
the entire system is by introducing the possibility of user think time into
the middle of a transaction. That is only possible when the transaction can
consist of multiple method calls: 

Between the method calls, the resources changed have to be locked on the
server. (Otherwise, you wouldn't have a transaction, because it would have
the ACID properties.) If a resource that is needed is locked by another
concurrent transaction, your transaction has to wait. If you wait, you have
to worry about waiting forever. DBMS's typically solve that problem by doing
deadlock analysis and picking a transaction to abort and rollback, if
necessary. The method call can not return until the waiting, if any, is
finished. Some remote systems don't do deadlock analysis -- they time out.
Timing out has a terrible impact on performance if it happens more than
rarely.

Let me give you a real life example that actually happened to me. I was
checking in at the gate on a flight and requesting a seat assignment. The
attendant pulled up a screen showing the availability of the kind of seat I
wanted. In the few seconds during which he said "Yes, we can satisfy your
request" and I said "OK, do it", the seat disappeared, and he had to say,
"Sorry, the assignment failed, try again.". The reason that happened is that
there were two complete transactions involved, not one. The first
transaction was a retrieval of the seat availability of the entire plane.
The second was the update transaction. In between the transactions, another
transaction got in there. 

If you provide the ability to do the retrieval as the first part of the
transaction (i.e., as a method call), all the seats on the airplane will
have to stay locked while I make up my mind. Then throughput would be so
terrible that it would be unacceptable. No one else in the country could get
a seat assignment on that plane while I was deciding what to do. 

Unfortunately, I know from plenty of personal experience that that is
exactly the way most client application programmers will initially try to
program it. Programming it that way will allow them to "shoot themselves in
the foot". Not allowing that (by requiring that transactions be a single
method call) will prevent the performance disaster (as well as eliminate
stateful behavior on the server).

In any case, it is completely false that there is no performance difference.

Alan Babich
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 17:04:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT