An Alternative Model to Overcoming Two Phase Commit Blocking Problem

Hassan Jafar Sheikh Salah, Dr. Richard M. Rimiru, Dr. Michael W. Kimwele


In distributed transactions, the atomicity requirement of the atomic commitment protocol should be preserved. The two phased commit protocol algorithm is widely used to ensure that transactions in distributed environment are atomic. However, a main drawback was attributed to the algorithm, which is a blocking problem. The system will get in stuck when participating sites or the coordinator itself crashes. To address this problem a number of algorithms related to 2PC protocol were proposed such as back up coordinator and a technique whereby the algorithm passes through 3PC during failure. However, both algorithms face limitations such as multiple site and backup coordinator failures. Therefore, we proposed an alternative model to overcoming the blocking problem in combined form. The algorithm was simulated using Britonix transaction manager (BTM) using Eclipse IDE and MYSQL. In this paper, we assessed the performance of the alternative model and found that this algorithm handled site and coordinator failures in distributed transactions using hybridization (combination of two algorithms) with minimal communication messages.


Distributed transactions; atomicity; two phase commit protocol; three phase commit protocol.

Full Text:



. H. Garcia-Molina, J. D. Ullman, and J. Widom, Database systems: the complete book. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Pearson Prentice, 2008. pp. 1020-1021.

. S. K. Rahimi and F. S. Haug, Distributed Database Management Systems: A Practical Approach. John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp.185.

. L. Lou, F. Tang, I. You, M. Guo, Y. Shen, and L. Li, “An Effective Deadlock Prevention Mechanism for Distributed Transaction Management,” 2011 Fifth International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, 2011.

S. Tanenbaum and M. van. Steen, Distributed Systems: Principles and paradigms, Second edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. pp 355-363.

. Lannhult, & B. Lindblom, “Review of Non-Blocking Two-Phase Commit Protocols. Master Program in Computer System Engineering”, Emausgatan C, 29. Available: http:// [Mar 5, 2016].

M. Atif, “Analysis and verification of Two-Phase Commit & Three-Phase Commit Protocols,” in proc. DOI: 10.1109/ICET.2009.5353152. Dec 2009, pp. 326-331. Available: [12 march, 2016].

P. Singh, P. Yadav, A. Shukla, and S. Lohia, “An Extended Three Phase Commit Protocol for Concurrency Control in Distributed Systems,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 35–39, 2011. Available: [Jan 15, 2016]

V. Manikandan, R. Ravichandran, R. Suresh, & F. S. Francis,. “An Efficient Non-Blocking Two Phase Commit Protocol for Distributed Transactions”. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, Vol.2, Issue.3, pp. 788-791 may 2012. Available: [Feb 25, 2016].

N. Kumar, L. Sahoo, and A. Kumar, “Design and implementation of Three Phase Commit Protocol (3PC) algorithm,” 2014 International Conference on Reliability Optimization and Information Technology (ICROIT), pp. 116–120, 2014.

T. K. Abuya, R. M. Rimiru, & W. K. Cheruiyot, “AN IMPROVED FAILURE RECOVERY ALGORITHM IN TWO-PHASE COMMIT PROTOCOL FOR TRANSACTION ATOMICITY”. Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, vol.5, Issue.12, pp 01-11, Dec 2014. Available: [Feb 20, 2016].

T. K. Abuya, R. M. Rimiru, & W. K. Cheruiyot, “A Clustering Algorithm in Two-Phase Commit Protocol for Optimizing Distributed Transaction Failure”. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, vol.4, Issue.3, pp 97-106, Mar 2015. Available: [Mar 20, 2016].


  • There are currently no refbacks.





About IJC | Privacy PolicyTerms & Conditions | Contact Us | DisclaimerFAQs 

IJC is published by (GSSRR).