This paper presents an evaluation of the end-to-end latency of a fault-tolerant CORBA infrastructure that we have implemented. The fault-tolerant infrastructure replicates the server applications using active, passive and semi-active replication, and maintains strong replica consistency of the server replicas. By analyses and by measurements of the running fault-tolerant infrastructure, we characterize the end-to-end latency under fault-free conditions. The main determining factor of the run-time performance of the fault-tolerant infrastructure is the Totem group communication protocol, which contributes to the end-to-end latency primarily in two ways: the delay in sending messages and the processing cost of the rotating token.
To reduce the delay in sending messages for passive and semi-active replication, the position of the primary server replica on the Totem ring, the token rotation time, the processing time at the client, and the processing time at the server must be considered. For active replication, the presence of duplicate messages adversely affects the performance. However, if an effective sending-side duplicate suppression mechanism is implemented, active replication is more advantageous than both passive and semi-active replication because of the automatic selection of the most favorable position of the server replica that sends the first non-duplicate reply.
Zhao, Wenbing; Moser, Louise E.; and Melliar-Smith, P. Michale, "End-To-End Latency of a Fault-Tolerant CORBA Infrastructure" (2006). Electrical Engineering & Computer Science Faculty Publications. 65.
Zhao, W., Moser, L., , & Melliar-Smith, P. (2006). End-to-end latency of a fault-tolerant CORBA infrastructure. Performance Evaluation, 63(4-5), 341-363. doi:10.1016/j.peva.2005.03.002
NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Performance Evaluation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Performance Evaluation, 63, 4-5, (05-01-2006); 10.1016/j.peva.2005.03.002