Sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system

Garrod , et al. June 8, 2

Patent Grant RE48589

U.S. patent number RE48,589 [Application Number 14/830,420] was granted by the patent office on 2021-06-08 for sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system. This patent grant is currently assigned to Palantir Technologies Inc.. The grantee listed for this patent is Palantir Technologies, Inc.. Invention is credited to Katherine Brainard, John Antonio Carrino, Allen Chang, John Kenneth Garrod, Jacob Scott.


United States Patent RE48,589
Garrod ,   et al. June 8, 2021

Sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system

Abstract

A computer-based method and system for sharing and deconflicting data changes amongst a plurality of replication sites. In a particular embodiment, data changes at sites to data objects are tracked by each site on a per-data object basis using per-data object version vectors. In another particular embodiment, data changes at sites to links connecting two data objects are tracked by each site on a per-link set basis using per-link set version vectors. In another particular embodiment, per-object version vectors are used to detect a conflict resulting from concurrent changes at two or more sites in which one of the concurrent changes includes an object resolution change.


Inventors: Garrod; John Kenneth (Palo Alto, CA), Carrino; John Antonio (Palo Alto, CA), Brainard; Katherine (East Orange, NJ), Scott; Jacob (Berkeley, CA), Chang; Allen (Mountain View, CA)
Applicant:
Name City State Country Type

Palantir Technologies, Inc.

Palo Alto

CA

US
Assignee: Palantir Technologies Inc. (Palo Alto, CA)
Family ID: 1000004565239
Appl. No.: 14/830,420
Filed: August 19, 2015

Related U.S. Patent Documents

Application Number Filing Date Patent Number Issue Date
Reissue of: 12836801 Jul 15, 2010 8515912 Aug 20, 2013

Current U.S. Class: 1/1
Current CPC Class: G06F 16/2329 (20190101)
Current International Class: G06F 16/23 (20190101)
Field of Search: ;707/610

References Cited [Referenced By]

U.S. Patent Documents
4881179 November 1989 Vincent
5241625 August 1993 Epard et al.
5548749 August 1996 Kroenke et al.
5708828 January 1998 Coleman
5765171 June 1998 Gehani et al.
5774717 June 1998 Porcaro
5806074 September 1998 Souder et al.
5845300 December 1998 Comer
5870761 February 1999 Demers et al.
5943676 August 1999 Boothby
5978475 November 1999 Schneier et al.
5999911 December 1999 Berg et al.
6065026 May 2000 Cornelia et al.
6098078 August 2000 Gehani et al.
6101479 August 2000 Shaw
6190053 February 2001 Stahlecker et al.
6202085 March 2001 Benson et al.
6216140 April 2001 Kramer
6232971 May 2001 Haynes
6237138 May 2001 Hameluck et al.
6240414 May 2001 Beizer et al.
6243706 June 2001 Moreau et al.
6279018 August 2001 Kudrolli et al.
6289338 September 2001 Stoffel et al.
6317754 November 2001 Peng
6370538 April 2002 Lamping et al.
6374252 April 2002 Althoff et al.
6430305 August 2002 Decker
6463404 October 2002 Appleby
6523019 February 2003 Borthwick
6523172 February 2003 Martinez-Guerra et al.
6539381 March 2003 Prasad et al.
6539538 March 2003 Brewster et al.
6560620 May 2003 Ching
6640231 October 2003 Andersen et al.
6642945 November 2003 Sharpe
6665683 December 2003 Meltzer
6725240 April 2004 Asad et al.
6748481 June 2004 Parry et al.
6807569 October 2004 Bhimani et al.
6816941 November 2004 Carlson et al.
6850317 February 2005 Mullins et al.
6877137 April 2005 Rivette et al.
6944777 September 2005 Belani et al.
6944821 September 2005 Bates et al.
6967589 November 2005 Peters
6978419 December 2005 Kantrowitz
7017046 March 2006 Doyle et al.
7027974 April 2006 Busch et al.
7072911 July 2006 Doman
7086028 August 2006 Davis et al.
7089541 August 2006 Ungar
7167877 January 2007 Balogh et al.
7174377 February 2007 Bernard et al.
7194680 March 2007 Roy et al.
7213030 May 2007 Jenkins
7225468 May 2007 Waisman et al.
7237192 June 2007 Stephenson et al.
7240330 July 2007 Fairweather
7302708 November 2007 Kovarik
7392254 June 2008 Jenkins
7437664 October 2008 Borson
7441182 October 2008 Beilinson et al.
7441219 October 2008 Perry et al.
7523146 April 2009 Holt et al.
7530105 May 2009 Gilbert et al.
7533069 May 2009 Fairweather
7596285 September 2009 Brown et al.
7627812 December 2009 Chamberlain et al.
7634717 December 2009 Chamberlain et al.
7664829 February 2010 Yamamoto et al.
7676788 March 2010 Ousterhout et al.
7685083 March 2010 Fairweather
7707178 April 2010 Prahlad et al.
7716140 May 2010 Nielsen et al.
7730396 June 2010 Chidlovskii et al.
7765489 July 2010 Shah
7770032 August 2010 Nesta et al.
7770100 August 2010 Chamberlain et al.
7801871 September 2010 Gosnell
7805408 September 2010 Padgett et al.
7818297 October 2010 Peleg et al.
7877421 January 2011 Berger et al.
7880921 February 2011 Dattilo et al.
7941336 May 2011 Robin-Jan
7953710 May 2011 Novik
7958147 June 2011 Turner et al.
7962495 June 2011 Jain et al.
7962848 June 2011 Bertram
7966199 June 2011 Frasher
8001465 August 2011 Kudrolli et al.
8001482 August 2011 Bhattiprolu et al.
8010507 August 2011 Poston et al.
8015151 September 2011 Lier et al.
8073857 December 2011 Sreekanth
8117022 February 2012 Linker
8132149 March 2012 Shenfield et al.
8190893 May 2012 Benson et al.
8191005 May 2012 Baier et al.
8196184 June 2012 Amirov et al.
8225201 July 2012 Michael
8239668 August 2012 Chen et al.
8271948 September 2012 Talozi et al.
8290838 October 2012 Thakur et al.
8290990 October 2012 Drath et al.
8301904 October 2012 Gryaznov
8302855 November 2012 Ma et al.
8312367 November 2012 Foster
8312546 November 2012 Alme
8316060 November 2012 Snyder et al.
8380659 February 2013 Zunger
8392556 March 2013 Goulet et al.
8442940 May 2013 Faletti et al.
8489623 July 2013 Jain et al.
8515912 August 2013 Garrod
8527461 September 2013 Ducott, III et al.
8527949 September 2013 Pleis et al.
8560494 October 2013 Downing
8620641 December 2013 Farnsworth et al.
8646080 February 2014 Williamson et al.
8682696 March 2014 Shanmugam
8688573 April 2014 Ruknoic et al.
8688749 April 2014 Ducott, III et al.
8689182 April 2014 Leithead et al.
8726379 May 2014 Stiansen et al.
8732574 May 2014 Burr et al.
8782004 July 2014 Ducott
8799313 August 2014 Satlow
8807948 August 2014 Luo et al.
8838538 September 2014 Landau et al.
8886601 November 2014 Landau et al.
8903717 December 2014 Elliot
8930874 January 2015 Duff et al.
8930897 January 2015 Nassar
8938686 January 2015 Erenrich et al.
8984390 March 2015 Aymeloglu et al.
9009827 April 2015 Albertson et al.
9021260 April 2015 Falk et al.
9058315 June 2015 Burr et al.
9165100 October 2015 Begur et al.
9189492 November 2015 Ducott
9286373 March 2016 Elliot et al.
9501552 November 2016 McGrew
9569070 February 2017 Ma et al.
2001/0021936 September 2001 Bertram
2002/0032677 March 2002 Morgenthaler et al.
2002/0095360 July 2002 Joao
2002/0103705 August 2002 Brady
2002/0112157 August 2002 Doyle et al.
2002/0196229 December 2002 Chen et al.
2003/0036927 February 2003 Bowen
2003/0055825 March 2003 Chen et al.
2003/0061132 March 2003 Mason et al.
2003/0084017 May 2003 Ordille
2003/0088654 May 2003 Good et al.
2003/0093755 May 2003 O'Carroll
2003/0126102 July 2003 Borthwick
2003/0028560 September 2003 Kudrolli et al.
2003/0172053 September 2003 Fairweather
2003/0177112 September 2003 Gardner
2003/0182313 September 2003 Federwisch et al.
2004/0034570 February 2004 Davis
2004/0044648 March 2004 Anfindsen et al.
2004/0044992 March 2004 Muller et al.
2004/0078451 April 2004 Dietz et al.
2004/0083466 April 2004 Dapp et al.
2004/0103124 May 2004 Kupkova
2004/0103147 May 2004 Flesher et al.
2004/0111390 June 2004 Saito et al.
2004/0153418 August 2004 Hanweck
2004/0205492 October 2004 Newsome
2004/0221223 November 2004 Yu et al.
2004/0236688 November 2004 Bozeman
2004/0236711 November 2004 Nixon et al.
2004/0250124 December 2004 Chesla et al.
2004/0250576 December 2004 Flanders
2005/0010472 January 2005 Quatse et al.
2005/0028094 February 2005 Allyn
2005/0034107 February 2005 Kendall et al.
2005/0039116 February 2005 Slack-Smith
2005/0039119 February 2005 Parks et al.
2005/0044187 February 2005 Jhaveri et al.
2005/0050537 March 2005 Thompson et al.
2005/0091186 April 2005 Elish
2005/0091420 April 2005 Snover et al.
2005/0097061 May 2005 Shapiro et al.
2005/0108063 May 2005 Madill et al.
2005/0125715 June 2005 Franco et al.
2005/0183005 August 2005 Denoue et al.
2005/0193024 September 2005 Beyer et al.
2005/0229256 October 2005 Banzhof
2005/0267865 December 2005 Bird et al.
2006/0026561 February 2006 Bauman et al.
2006/0031779 February 2006 Theurer et al.
2006/0036568 February 2006 Moore et al.
2006/0045470 March 2006 Poslinski et al.
2006/0053097 March 2006 King et al.
2006/0053170 March 2006 Hill et al.
2006/0059423 March 2006 Lehmann et al.
2006/0069912 March 2006 Zheng et al.
2006/0074866 April 2006 Chamberlain et al.
2006/0080139 April 2006 Mainzer
2006/0106879 May 2006 Zondervan et al.
2006/0129746 June 2006 Porter
2006/0136513 June 2006 Ngo et al.
2006/0143075 June 2006 Carr et al.
2006/0155654 July 2006 Plessis et al.
2006/0155945 July 2006 McGarvey
2006/0178915 August 2006 Chao
2006/0190497 August 2006 Inturi et al.
2006/0206866 September 2006 Eldrige et al.
2006/0218637 September 2006 Thomas et al.
2006/0224579 October 2006 Zheng
2006/0242204 October 2006 Karas et al.
2006/0265377 November 2006 Raman et al.
2006/0265417 November 2006 Amato et al.
2006/0265747 November 2006 Judge
2006/0271526 November 2006 Charnock et al.
2006/0277460 December 2006 Forstall et al.
2007/0000999 January 2007 Kubo et al.
2007/0005707 January 2007 Teodosiu et al.
2007/0018986 January 2007 Hauser
2007/0026373 February 2007 Suriyanarayanan et al.
2007/0043686 February 2007 Teng et al.
2007/0061752 March 2007 Cory
2007/0074169 March 2007 Chess et al.
2007/0078872 April 2007 Cohen
2007/0112714 May 2007 Fairweather
2007/0112887 May 2007 Liu et al.
2007/0113164 May 2007 Hansen et al.
2007/0130217 June 2007 Linyard et al.
2007/0136095 June 2007 Weinstein
2007/0168516 July 2007 Liu et al.
2007/0168871 July 2007 Jenkins
2007/0174760 July 2007 Chamberlain et al.
2007/0180075 August 2007 Chasman et al.
2007/0185850 August 2007 Walters et al.
2007/0220067 September 2007 Suriyanarayanan et al.
2007/0220328 September 2007 Liu et al.
2007/0233756 October 2007 D'Souza et al.
2007/0245339 October 2007 Bauman et al.
2007/0284433 December 2007 Domenica et al.
2007/0294766 December 2007 Mir et al.
2007/0299697 December 2007 Friedlander et al.
2007/0299887 December 2007 Novik et al.
2008/0005188 January 2008 Li
2008/0016155 January 2008 Khalatian
2008/0027981 January 2008 Wahl
2008/0033753 February 2008 Canda et al.
2008/0086718 April 2008 Bostick et al.
2008/0091693 April 2008 Murthy
2008/0109714 May 2008 Kumar et al.
2008/0140387 June 2008 Linker
2008/0141117 June 2008 King et al.
2008/0148398 June 2008 Mezack et al.
2008/0168135 July 2008 Redlich et al.
2008/0172607 July 2008 Baer
2008/0177782 July 2008 Poston et al.
2008/0186904 August 2008 Koyama et al.
2008/0189240 August 2008 Mullins et al.
2008/0201580 August 2008 Savitzky et al.
2008/0228467 September 2008 Womack et al.
2008/0229422 September 2008 Hudis et al.
2008/0235575 September 2008 Weiss
2008/0243951 October 2008 Webman et al.
2008/0249820 October 2008 Pathria
2008/0276167 November 2008 Michael
2008/0281580 November 2008 Zabokritski
2008/0288475 November 2008 Kim et al.
2008/0313132 December 2008 Hao et al.
2008/0313243 December 2008 Poston et al.
2008/0320299 December 2008 Wobber et al.
2009/0024946 January 2009 Gotz
2009/0024962 January 2009 Gotz
2009/0031401 January 2009 Cudich et al.
2009/0043801 February 2009 LeClair
2009/0089651 April 2009 Herberger et al.
2009/0103442 April 2009 Douville
2009/0106178 April 2009 Chu
2009/0112678 April 2009 Luzardo
2009/0112745 April 2009 Stefanescu
2009/0150868 June 2009 Chakra et al.
2009/0164934 June 2009 Bhattiprolu et al.
2009/0172821 July 2009 Daira et al.
2009/0177962 July 2009 Gusmorino et al.
2009/0187546 July 2009 Whyte et al.
2009/0199090 August 2009 Poston et al.
2009/0199106 August 2009 Jonsson et al.
2009/0216562 August 2009 Faulkner et al.
2009/0228507 September 2009 Jain et al.
2009/0228701 September 2009 Lin
2009/0248757 October 2009 Havewala et al.
2009/0249178 October 2009 Ambrosino et al.
2009/0249244 October 2009 Robinson et al.
2009/0254970 October 2009 Agarwal et al.
2009/0271343 October 2009 Vaiciulis et al.
2009/0281839 November 2009 Lynn et al.
2009/0282068 November 2009 Shockro et al.
2009/0287470 November 2009 Farnsworth et al.
2009/0307049 December 2009 Elliott et al.
2009/0313463 December 2009 Pang et al.
2009/0319891 December 2009 MacKinlay
2009/0328222 December 2009 Helman et al.
2010/0004857 January 2010 Pereira et al.
2010/0011000 January 2010 Chakra et al.
2010/0011282 January 2010 Dollard et al.
2010/0057622 March 2010 Faith et al.
2010/0070842 March 2010 Aymeloglu et al.
2010/0070844 March 2010 Aymeloglu et al.
2010/0076813 March 2010 Ghosh et al.
2010/0077481 March 2010 Polyakov et al.
2010/0098318 April 2010 Anderson
2010/0100963 April 2010 Mahaffey
2010/0122152 May 2010 Chamberlain et al.
2010/0145909 June 2010 Ngo
2010/0169137 July 2010 Jastrebski et al.
2010/0204983 August 2010 Chung et al.
2010/0223260 September 2010 Wu
2010/0235915 September 2010 Memon et al.
2010/0238174 September 2010 Haub et al.
2010/0262688 October 2010 Hussain et al.
2010/0262901 October 2010 DiSalvo
2010/0280851 November 2010 Merkin
2010/0306285 December 2010 Shah et al.
2010/0306722 December 2010 LeHoty et al.
2010/0313119 December 2010 Baldwin et al.
2010/0313239 December 2010 Chakra et al.
2010/0330801 December 2010 Rouh
2011/0010342 January 2011 Chen et al.
2011/0047540 February 2011 Williams et al.
2011/0060910 March 2011 Gormish et al.
2011/0074788 March 2011 Regan et al.
2011/0093327 April 2011 Fordyce et al.
2011/0099133 April 2011 Chang et al.
2011/0107196 May 2011 Foster
2011/0145187 June 2011 Himmelsbach et al.
2011/0161409 June 2011 Nair
2011/0173093 July 2011 Psota et al.
2011/0179048 July 2011 Satlow
2011/0208565 August 2011 Ross et al.
2011/0219450 September 2011 McDougal et al.
2011/0225482 September 2011 Chan et al.
2011/0246229 October 2011 Pacha
2011/0258216 October 2011 Supakkul et al.
2012/0004894 January 2012 Butler
2012/0005159 January 2012 Wang et al.
2012/0016849 January 2012 Garrod et al.
2012/0022945 January 2012 Falkenborg et al.
2012/0023075 January 2012 Pulfer et al.
2012/0036106 February 2012 Desai et al.
2012/0059853 March 2012 Jagota
2012/0065987 March 2012 Farooq et al.
2012/0084117 April 2012 Tavares et al.
2012/0084184 April 2012 Raleigh
2012/0110633 May 2012 An et al.
2012/0110674 May 2012 Belani et al.
2012/0136839 May 2012 Eberlein et al.
2012/0188252 July 2012 Law
2012/0191446 July 2012 Binsztok et al.
2012/0197657 August 2012 Prodanovic
2012/0197660 August 2012 Prodanovic
2012/0210294 August 2012 Gores
2012/0215784 August 2012 King et al.
2012/0221553 August 2012 Wittmer et al.
2012/0226590 September 2012 Love et al.
2012/0254129 October 2012 Wheeler et al.
2012/0266245 October 2012 McDougal et al.
2012/0284670 November 2012 Kashik et al.
2012/0304150 November 2012 Leithead et al.
2012/0304244 November 2012 Xie et al.
2012/0323829 December 2012 Stokes et al.
2013/0006655 January 2013 Van Arkel et al.
2013/0006668 January 2013 Van Arkel et al.
2013/0016106 January 2013 Yip et al.
2013/0067017 March 2013 Carriere et al.
2013/0086482 April 2013 Parsons
2013/0091084 April 2013 Lee
2013/0097482 April 2013 Marantz et al.
2013/0124193 May 2013 Holmberg
2013/0124567 May 2013 Balinsky et al.
2013/0139268 May 2013 An et al.
2013/0151305 June 2013 Akinola et al.
2013/0151453 June 2013 Bhanot et al.
2013/0166480 June 2013 Popescu et al.
2013/0173540 July 2013 Qian et al.
2013/0191336 July 2013 Ducott et al.
2013/0191338 July 2013 Ducott, III et al.
2013/0251233 September 2013 Yang et al.
2013/0262527 October 2013 Hunter et al.
2013/0262528 October 2013 Foit
2013/0263019 October 2013 Castellanos et al.
2013/0275446 October 2013 Jain et al.
2013/0276799 October 2013 Davidson
2013/0288719 October 2013 Alonzo
2013/0346444 December 2013 Makkar et al.
2014/0040182 February 2014 Gilder et al.
2014/0040714 February 2014 Siegel et al.
2014/0059683 February 2014 Ashley
2014/0081652 March 2014 Klindworth
2014/0089339 March 2014 Siddiqui et al.
2014/0114972 April 2014 Ducott et al.
2014/0123279 May 2014 Bishop et al.
2014/0129518 May 2014 Ducott et al.
2014/0129936 May 2014 Richards et al.
2014/0143009 May 2014 Brice et al.
2014/0149130 May 2014 Getchius
2014/0208281 July 2014 Ming
2014/0222793 August 2014 Sadkin et al.
2014/0244284 August 2014 Smith
2014/0358829 December 2014 Hurwitz
2014/0366132 December 2014 Stiansen et al.
2015/0026622 January 2015 Roaldson et al.
2015/0046481 February 2015 Elliot
2015/0073954 March 2015 Braff
2015/0074050 March 2015 Landau et al.
2015/0089353 March 2015 Folkening
2015/0100559 April 2015 Nassar
2015/0100907 April 2015 Erenrich et al.
2015/0106379 April 2015 Elliot et al.
2015/0142766 May 2015 Jain et al.
2015/0186483 July 2015 Tappan et al.
2015/0212663 July 2015 Papale et al.
2015/0235334 August 2015 Wang et al.
2015/0254220 September 2015 Burr et al.
2015/0261847 September 2015 Ducott et al.
2016/0019252 January 2016 Ducott
2016/0062555 March 2016 Ward et al.
2016/0098176 April 2016 Cervelli et al.
2016/0110369 April 2016 Cervelli et al.
2016/0162519 June 2016 Stowe et al.
2017/0068716 March 2017 Richards et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
2011279270 Sep 2015 AU
2013251186 Nov 2015 AU
2666364 Jan 2015 CA
2806954 Sep 2017 CA
101729531 Jun 2010 CN
103281301 Sep 2013 CN
102054015 May 2014 CN
102014204840 Sep 2014 DE
102014215621 Feb 2015 DE
0816968 Jan 1996 EP
1647908 Apr 2006 EP
1 672 527 Jun 2006 EP
2778913 Sep 2014 EP
2778914 Sep 2014 EP
2778986 Sep 2014 EP
2911078 Aug 2015 EP
2993595 Mar 2016 EP
3002691 Apr 2016 EP
3009943 Apr 2016 EP
3032441 Jun 2016 EP
2366498 Mar 2002 GB
2513007 Oct 2014 GB
2518745 Apr 2015 GB
2013306 Feb 2015 NL
WO 01/025906 Apr 2001 WO
WO 2001/088750 Nov 2001 WO
WO 2003/060751 Jul 2003 WO
WO 2007/133206 Nov 2007 WO
WO 2008/064207 May 2008 WO
WO 2008/113059 Sep 2008 WO
WO 2010/030913 Mar 2010 WO
WO 2010/030914 Mar 2010 WO
WO 2011/071833 Jun 2011 WO
WO 2011/161565 Dec 2011 WO
WO 2012/009397 Jan 2012 WO
WO 2012/119008 Sep 2012 WO

Other References

US. Appl. No. 14/518,757, filed Oct. 20, 2014, Office Action, dated Dec. 1, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/675,716, filed Mar. 31, 2015, Final Office Action, dated Dec. 24, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/076,385, filed Nov. 11, 2013, Final Office Action, dated Jan. 25, 2016. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/657,684, filed Oct. 22, 2012, Office Action, dated Aug. 25, 2014. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/156,208, filed Jan. 15, 2014, Office Action, dated Mar. 9, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/156,208, filed Jan. 15, 2014, Notice of Allowance, dated Feb. 12, 2016. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/156,208, filed Jan. 15, 2014, Interview Summary, dated Sep. 17, 215. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/334,232, filed Jul. 17, 2014, Notice of Allowance, dated Nov. 10, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 12/836,801, filed Jul. 15, 2010, Notice of Allowance, dated Apr. 16, 2013. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/076,804, filed Mar. 31, 2011, Notice of Allowance, dated Aug. 26, 2013. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/076,804, field Mar. 31, 2011, Advisory Action, dated Jun. 20, 2013. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/355,726, filed Jan. 23, 2012, Notice of Allowance, dated Apr. 28, 2014. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/355,726, filed Jan. 23, 2012, Office Action, dated Mar. 25, 2014. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/686,750, filed Nov. 27, 2012, Office Action, dated Mar. 13, 2013. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/156,208, filed Jan. 15, 2015, Office Action, dated Mar. 9, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/286,485, filed May 23, 2014, Notice of Allowance, dated Jul. 29, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/286,485, filed May 23, 2014, Pre-Interview Office Action, dated Mar. 12, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/076,804, filed Mar. 31, 2011, Final Office Action, dated Apr. 12, 2013. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/156,208, filed Jan. 15, 2015, Final Office Action, dated Aug. 11, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/473,860, filed Aug. 9, 2014, Notice of Allowance, dated Jan. 5, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/657,684, filed Oct. 22, 2012, Notice of Allowance, dated Mar. 2, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/657,684, filed Oct. 22, 2012, Office Action, dated Aug. 28, 2014. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/076,385, filed Nov. 11, 2013, Final Office Action, dated Jan. 22, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/518,757, filed Oct. 20, 2014, First Office Action Interview, dated Apr. 2, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/518,757, filed Oct. 20, 2014, Final Office Action, dated Jul. 20, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/286,485, filed May 23, 2014, First Office Action Interview, dated Apr. 30, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/076,385, filed Nov. 11, 2013, Office Action, dated Jun. 2, 2015. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 14/334,232, filed Jul. 17, 2015, Office Action, dated Jul. 10, 2015. cited by applicant .
Dell Latitude D600 2003, Dell Inc., http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/latit/en/spec_latit_d600_en- .pdf. cited by applicant .
Dou et al., "Ontology Translaation on the Semantic Web 2005," Springer-Verlag, Journal on Data Semantics II Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3350, pp. 35-37. cited by applicant .
Fidge, Colin J., "Timestamps in Message-Passing Systems," K. Raymond (Ed.) Proc. of the 11.sup.th Australian Computer Science Conference (ACSC 1988), pp. 56-66. cited by applicant .
Holliday, JoAnne, "Replicated Database Recovery using Multicast Communication," IEEE 2002, pp. 11. cited by applicant .
Lamport, "Time, Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System," Communications of the ACM, Jul. 1978, vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 558-565. cited by applicant .
Loeliger, Jon, "Version Control with Git," O'Reilly, May 2009, pp. 330. cited by applicant .
Mattern, F. "Virtual Time and Global States of Distributed Systems," Cosnard, M., Proc. Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Algorithms, Chateau de Bonas, France:Elsevier, 1989, pp. 215-226. cited by applicant .
O'Sullivan, Bryan, "Making Sense of Revision Control Systems," Communications of the ACM, Sep. 2009, vol. 52, No. 9, pp. 57-62. cited by applicant .
OWL Web Ontology Language Reference Feb 04, W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/. cited by applicant .
Parker, Jr. et al., "Detection of Mutual Inconsistency in Distributed Systems," IEEE Transactions in Software Engineering, May 1983, vol. SE-9, No. 3, pp. 241-247. cited by applicant .
Claims for European Patent Application No. 13152370.6 dated Jun. 2013, 5 pages. cited by applicant .
Claims for Australian Patent Application No. 2012238282 dated Jan. 2014, 5 pages. cited by applicant .
Claims for Australian Patent Application No. 2012238282 dated Jun. 2014, 4 pages. cited by applicant .
Claims for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2011/043794 dated Jan. 2013, 6 pages. cited by applicant .
Claims for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2011/043794 dated Feb. 2012, 6 pages. cited by applicant .
Claims for Canadian Patent Application No. 2666364 dated Oct. 2013, 7 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 13152370.6 dated Jun. 3, 2013. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Canadian Patent Application No. 2666364 dated Oct. 3, 2013. cited by applicant .
International Search Report & Written Opinion for Patent Application No. PCT/US2011/043794 dated Feb. 24, 2012. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Australian Patent Application No. 2012238282 dated Jun. 6, 2014. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Australian Patent Application No. 2012238282 dated Jan. 30, 2014. cited by applicant .
Written Opinion and Search Report for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2011/043794 dated Jan. 24, 2013. cited by applicant .
Symantec Corporation, "E-Security Begins with Sound Security Policies," Announcement Policies, Jun. 14, 2001. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 15156004.2 dated Aug. 24, 2015. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 15155845.9 dated Oct. 6, 2015. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Canadian Patent Application No. 2806954 dated Jan. 15, 2016. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 14159175.0 dated Feb. 4, 2016. cited by applicant .
Abbey, Kristen, "Review of Google Docs," May 1, 2007, pp. 2. cited by applicant .
Klemmer et al., "Where Do Web Sites Come From? Capturing and Interacting with Design History," Association for Computing Machinery, CHI 2002, Apr. 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 8. cited by applicant .
Altmanninger et al., "A Categorization for Conflicts in Model Versioning," Elektrotechnik & Informationstechnik (2011), 128/11-12: 421-426. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 15190307.7 dated Feb. 19, 2016. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 15188106.7 dated Feb. 3, 2016. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Australian Patent Application No. 2014201506 dated Feb. 27, 2015. cited by applicant .
Palantir, "Extracting and Transforming Data with Kite," Palantir Technologies, Inc., Copyright 2010, pp. 38. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Netherlands Patent Application No. 2012438 dated Sep. 21, 2015. cited by applicant .
SnagIt, "SnagIt Online Help Guide," <http://download.techsmith.com/snagit/docs/onlinehelp/enu/snagit_help.- pdf>, TechSmith Corp., Version 8.1, printed Feb. 7, 2007, pp. 284. cited by applicant .
"GrabUp--What a Timesaver!" <http://atlchris.com/191/grabup/>, Aug. 11, 2008, pp. 3. cited by applicant .
Palermo, Christopher J., "Memorandum," [Disclosure relating U.S. Appl. No. 13/916,447, filed Jun. 12, 2013, and related applications], Jan. 31, 2014 in 3 pages. cited by applicant .
Microsoft, "Registering an Application to a URI Scheme," <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa767914.aspx>, printed Apr. 4, 2009 in 4 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622497 dated Jun. 19, 2014. cited by applicant .
Delicious, <http://delicious.com/> as printed May 15, 2014 in 1 page. cited by applicant .
Kwout, <http://web.archive.org/web/20080905132448/http://www.kwout.com/- > Sep. 5, 2008, pp. 2. cited by applicant .
Schroder, Stan, "15 Ways To Create Website Screenshots," <http://mashable.com/2007/08/24/web-screenshots/>, Aug. 24, 2007, pp. 2. cited by applicant .
Glaab et al., "EnrichNet: Network-Based Gene Set Enrichment Analysis," Bioinformatics 28.18 (2012): pp. i451-i457. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622404 dated Mar. 20, 2014. cited by applicant .
Conner, Nancy, "Google Apps: The Missing Manual," May 1, 2008, pp. 15. cited by applicant .
FireEye, <http://www.fireeye.com/> Printed Jun. 30, 2014 in 2 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622473 dated Jun. 19, 2014. cited by applicant .
Geiger, Jonathan G., "Data Quality Management, the Most Critical Initiative You Can Implement", Data Warehousing, Management and Quality, Paper 098-29, SUGI 29, Intelligent Solutions, Inc., Bounder, CO, pp. 14, accessed Oct. 3, 2013. cited by applicant .
Baker et al., "The Development of a Common Enumeration of Vulnerabilities and Exposures," Presented at the Second International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Sep. 7-9, 1999, pp. 35. cited by applicant .
Johnson, Maggie, "Introduction to YACC and Bison". cited by applicant .
Microsoft Windows, "Microsoft Windows Version 2002 Print Out 2," 2002, pp. 1-6. cited by applicant .
SnagIt, "SnagIt 8.1.0 Print Out," Software release date Jun. 15, 2006, pp. 6. cited by applicant .
Gu et al., "Record Linkage: Current Practice and Future Directions," Jan. 15, 2004, pp. 32. cited by applicant .
Palantir, "Kite," https://docs.palantir.com/gotham/3.11.1.0/adminreference/datasources.11 printed Aug. 30, 2013 in 2 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Netherlands Patent Application No. 2011729 dated Aug. 13, 2015. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Great Britain Patent Application No. 1413935.6 dated Jan. 27, 2015. cited by applicant .
Wang et al., "Research on a Clustering Data De-Duplication Mechanism Based on Bloom Filter," IEEE 2010, 5 pages. cited by applicant .
Hur et al., "SciMiner: web-based literature mining tool for target identification and functional enrichment analysis," Bioinformatics 25.6 (2009): pp. 838-840. cited by applicant .
Nitro, "Trick: How to Capture a Screenshot As PDF, Annotate, Then Share It," <http://blog.nitropdf.com/2008/03/04/trick-how-to-capture-a-scree- nshot-as-pdf-annotate-it-then-share/>, Mar. 4, 2008, pp. 2. cited by applicant .
Nivas, Tuli, "Test Harness and Script Design Principles for Automated Testing of non-GUI or Web Based Applications," Performance Lab, Jun. 2011, pp. 30-37. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Israel Patent Application No. 198253 dated Nov. 24, 2014. cited by applicant .
Hua et al., "A Multi-attribute Data Structure with Parallel Bloom Filters for Network Services", HiPC 2006, LNCS 4297, pp. 277-288, 2006. cited by applicant .
Lee et al., "A Data Mining and CIDF Based Approach for Detecting Novel and Distributed Intrusions," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1907 Nov. 11, 2000, pp. 49-65. cited by applicant .
Morrison et al., "Converting Users to Testers: An Alternative Approach to Load Test Script Creation, Parameterization and Data Corellation," CCSC: Southeastern Conference, JCSC 28, 2, Dec. 2012, pp. 188-196. cited by applicant .
Waters et al., "Building an Encrypted and Searchable Audit Log," Published Jan. 9, 2004, 11 pages, http://www.parc.com/content/attachments/building_encrypted_searchable_505- 9_parc.pdf. cited by applicant .
Schneier et al., "Cryptographic Support for Secure Logs on Untrusted Machines," The Seventh USENIX Security Symposium Proceedings, USENIX Press, Jan. 1998, pp. 53-62, https://www.schneier.com/paper-secure-logs.pdf. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 12181585.6 dated Sep. 4, 2015. cited by applicant .
Galliford, Miles, "SnagIt Versus Free Screen Capture Software: Critical Tools for Website Owners," <http://www.subhub.com/articles/free-screen-capture-software>, Mar. 27, 2008, pp. 11. cited by applicant .
Crosby et al., "Efficient Data Structures for Tamper-Evident Logging," Department of Computer Science, Rice University, 2009, pp. 17. cited by applicant .
Ferreira et al., "A Scheme for Analyzing Electronic Payment Systems," Basil 1997. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Canadian Patent Application No. 2831660 dated Jun. 9, 2015. cited by applicant .
Online Tech Tips, "Clip2Net--Share files, folders and screenshots easily," <http://www.online-tech-tips.com/free-software-downloads/share-files-f- olders-screenshots/>, Apr. 2, 2008, pp. 5. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Australian Patent Application No. 2014201507 dated Feb. 27, 2015. cited by applicant .
FireEye--Products and Solutions Overview, <http://www.fireeye.com/products-and-solutions> Printed Jun. 30, 2014 in 3 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622414 dated Mar. 24, 2014. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Netherlands Patent Application No. 2013306 dated Apr. 24, 2015. cited by applicant .
VirusTotal--About, <http://www.virustotal.com/en/about/> Printed Jun. 30, 2014 in 8 pages. cited by applicant .
Palantir, "Kite Data-Integration Process Overview," Palantir Technologies, Inc., Copyright 2010, pp. 48. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 14158958.0 dated Apr. 16, 2015. cited by applicant .
Chaudhuri et al., "An Overview of Business Intelligence Technology," Communications of the ACM, Aug. 2011, vol. 54, No. 8. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 628161 dated Aug. 25, 2014. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 14189344.6 dated Feb. 29, 2016. cited by applicant .
Palantir, "The Repository Element," https://docs.palantir.com/gotham/3.11.1.0/dataguide/kite_config_file.04 printed Aug. 30, 2013 in 2 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622513 dated Apr. 3, 2014. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Great Britain Patent Application No. 1404486.1 dated Aug. 27, 2014. cited by applicant .
Palantir, "Kite Operations," Palantir Technologies, Inc., Copyright 2010, p. 1. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 14158977.0 dated Apr. 16, 2015. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Great Britain Patent Application No. 1404479.6 dated Aug. 12, 2014. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Great Britain Patent Application No. 1404499.4 dated Aug. 20, 2014. cited by applicant .
JetScreenshot.com, "Share Screenshots via Internet in Seconds," <http://web.archive.org/web/20130807164204/http://www.jetscreenshot.co- m/>, Aug. 7, 2013, pp. 1. cited by applicant .
Kokossi et al., "D7-Dynamic Ontoloty Management System (Design)," Information Societies Technology Programme, Jan. 10, 2002, pp. 1-27. cited by applicant .
"Remove a Published Document or Blog Post," Sharing and Collaborating on Blog Post. cited by applicant .
Bluttman et al., "Excel Formulas and Functions for Dummies," 2005, Wiley Publishing, Inc., pp. 280, 284-286. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Great Britain Patent Application No. 1404489.5 dated Aug. 27, 2014. cited by applicant .
Schneier et al., "Automatic Event Stream Notarization Using Digital Signatures," Security Protocols, International Workshop Apr. 1996 Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 155-169, https://schneier.com/paper-event-stream.pdf. cited by applicant .
Niepert et al., "A Dynamic Ontology for a Dynamic Reference Work", Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Jun. 17_22, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 1-10. cited by applicant .
Zheng et al., "Goeast: a web-based software toolkit for Gene Ontology enrichment analysis," Nucleic acids research 36.suppl 2 (2008): pp. W385-W363. cited by applicant .
Palantir, https://docs.palantir.com/gotham/3.11.1.0/dataguide/baggage/Kite- Schema.xsd printed Apr. 4, 2014 in 4 pages. cited by applicant .
Warren, Christina, "TUAW Faceoff: Screenshot apps on the firing line," <http://www.tuaw.com/2008/05/05/tuaw-faceoff-screenshot-apps-on-the-fi- ring-line/>, May 5, 2008, pp. 11. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622473 dated Mar. 27, 2014. cited by applicant .
Palantir, "Write a Kite Configuration File in Eclipse," Palantir Technologies, Inc., Copyright 2010, pp. 2. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Australian Patent Application No. 2013251186 dated Mar. 12, 2015. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622497 dated Mar. 26, 2014. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 14158977.0 dated Jun. 10, 2014. cited by applicant .
Anonymous, "BackTult _ JD Edwards One World Version Control System," printed Jul. 23, 2007 in 1 page. cited by applicant .
Ma et al., "A New Approach to Secure Logging," ACM Transactions on Storage, vol. 5, No. 1, Article 2, Published Mar. 2009, 21 pages. cited by applicant .
Wollrath et al., "A Distributed Object Model for the Java System," Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems, Jun. 17-21, 1996, pp. 219-231. cited by applicant .
Miklau et al., "Securing History: Privacy and Accountability in Database Systems," 3 rd Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), Jan. 7-10, 2007, Asilomar, California, pp. 387-396. cited by applicant .
Notice of Acceptance for Australian Patent Application No. 2013251186 dated Nov. 6, 2015. cited by applicant .
Microsoft, "Using the Clipboard," <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms649016.aspx>, printed Jun. 8, 2009 in 20 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Canadian Patent Application No. 2666364 dated Jun. 4, 2012. cited by applicant .
SnagIt, "SnagIt 8.1.0 Print Out 2," Software release date Jun. 15, 2006, pp. 1-3. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622389 dated Mar. 20, 2014. cited by applicant .
O'Reilly.com, http://oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2006/01/01/mac-os-x-screenshot-secrets.ht- ml published Jan. 1, 2006 in 10 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for European Patent Application No. 14159629.6 dated Jul. 31, 2014. cited by applicant .
"A Tour of Pinboard," <http://pinboard.in/tour> as printed May 15, 2014 in 6 page. cited by applicant .
Kahan et al., "Annotea: an Open RDF Infrastructure for Shared Web Annotations", Computer Networks, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., vol. 39, No. 5, dated Aug. 5, 2002. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for New Zealand Patent Application No. 622484 dated Apr. 2, 2014. cited by applicant .
European Claims application No. 11807426.9-1951, dated Nov. 2016, 7 pages. cited by applicant .
European Patent Office, "Search Report" in application No. 11807426.9-1951, dated Nov. 15, 2016, 8 pages. cited by applicant .
Parker et al., "Detection of Mutual Inconsistency in Distributed System", IEEE, vol. SE-9, No. 3, dated May 1, 1983, 8 pages. cited by applicant .
Saito et al., "Optimistic Replication" Technical Report, dated Sep. 2003, 52, pages. cited by applicant .
Parker Jr. et al., "Detection of Mutual Inconsistency in Distributed Systems", IEEE vol. SE-9, No. 3, dated May 1983, 8 pages. cited by applicant .
Official Communication for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,826,905 dated Oct. 17, 2016. cited by applicant .
Anonymous, "Record Linkage--Wikipedia", dated Apr. 26, 2011, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Record_linkage&oldid=426069016- , 5 pages. cited by applicant .
European Patent Office, Search Opinion, Application No. EP-13 152 370.6, dated Jun. 3, 2013, 8 pages. cited by applicant .
European Claims in application No. EP-13 152 370.6, dated Jun. 2013, 5 pages. cited by applicant .
European Patent Office, "Search Report" in application No. 11 807 426.9-1217, dated May 16, 2018, 7 pages. cited by applicant .
European Claims in application No. 11 807 426.9-1217, dated May 2018, 7 pages. cited by applicant .
IP Australia, AU Patent Examination Report, Application No. 2012/238282, dated Jun. 6, 2014. cited by applicant .
IP Australia, AU Patent Examination Report, Application No. 2012/2838282, dated Jan. 30, 2014. cited by applicant .
O'Sullivan B, et al., "Making Sense of Revision-Control Systems", Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, No. 9, dated Sep. 2009, pp. 57-62. cited by applicant .
Ries et al., "Locking Granularity Revisited", ACM Transactions on Database Systems, ACM, New York, NY, US vol. 4, No. 2, dated Jun. 1, 1979, 18 pages. cited by applicant .
Reiher, Peter et al., "Resolving File Conflicts in the Ficus File System", USENIX, The Advanced Computing Systems Association, dated Aug. 17, 1995, pp. 1-13. cited by applicant .
Ratner, David, "Selective Replication: Fine-Grain Control of Replicated Files", dated 1995, 97 pages. cited by applicant .
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration received in Application No. PCT/US11/43794 dated Feb. 24, 2012 (9 pages). cited by applicant .
Current Claims of PCT Application No. PCT/US11/43794 dated Feb. 2012 (6 pages). cited by applicant .
The International Bureau of WIPO Switzerland, "Written Opinion and Search Report", in application No. PCT/US2011/043794 dated Jan. 24, 2013, 5 pages. cited by applicant .
Current Claims in application No. PCT/US2011/043794 dated Jan. 2013, 6 pages. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/076,804, filed Mar. 31, 2011, Final Office Action. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/686,750, filed Nov. 27, 2012, Notice of Allowance. cited by applicant .
European Search Report, EP Application No. 13152370.6-1951, dated Jun. 3, 2013, 8 pages. cited by applicant .
Claims from EP Application No. 13152370.6, dated Jun. 2013, 5 pages. cited by applicant .
D. Scott Parker, Jr. et al., "Detection of Mutual Inconsistency in Distributed Systems" IEEE Transactions in Software Engineering, XP 000654801, May 1993, 8 pages. cited by applicant.

Primary Examiner: Ferris, III; Fred O
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Orich; Christine E. Hickman Becker Bingham Ledesma LLP

Claims



What is claimed is:

.[.1. In a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites, making a first change to a set of one or more links connecting two data objects by adding or removing one or more links from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the first site with a first version vector for the set of one or more links; at a second site of the plurality of sites, making a second change to the set of links connecting the two data objects by adding or removing a link from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the second site with a second version vector for the set of links; sharing the first change with the second site of the plurality of sites; receiving, at the second site, an update reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of the set of links, data reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site, and the first version vector for the set of links; at the second site, comparing the first version vector for the set of links to the second version vector for the set of links to determine whether the first change to the set of links at the first set and the second change to the set of links at the second site are identical, ordered, or concurrent; wherein the method is performed by a plurality of computing devices..].

.[.2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are ordered..].

.[.3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are concurrent..].

.[.4. In a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites: resolving two or more data objects together to produce a data object resolution change; sharing the data object resolution change with one or more other sites of the plurality of sites; at a second site of the plurality of sites: receiving an update reflecting the data object resolution change made at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of each of the two or more data objects, data that indicates that the two or more data objects were resolved together, and for each of the two or more data objects, a version vector for the data object; comparing, for each of one or more of the two or more data objects, the version vector for the data object received in the update to a version vector at the second site for the data object to determine whether the data object resolution change and a version at the second site of the data object are identical, ordered, or concurrent; determining, based on the comparing, that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects; and in response to determining that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects, determining that the data object resolution change conflicts with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects; wherein the method is performed by a plurality of computing devices..].

.[.5. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by a plurality of computing devices, cause performing a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites, making a first change to a set of one or more links connecting two data objects by adding or removing one or more links from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the first site with a first version vector for the set of one or more links; at a second site of the plurality of sites, making a second change to the set of links connecting the two data objects by adding or removing a link from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the second site with a second version vector for the set of links; sharing the first change with the second site of the plurality of sites; receiving, at the second site, an update reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of the set of links, data reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site, and the first version vector for the set of links; at the second site, comparing the first version vector for the set of links to the second version vector for the set of links to determine whether the first change to the set of links at the first set and the second change to the set of links at the second site are identical, ordered, or concurrent..].

.[.6. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 5, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are ordered..].

.[.7. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 5, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are concurrent..].

.[.8. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by a plurality of computing devices, cause performing a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites: resolving two or more data objects together to produce a data object resolution change; sharing the data object resolution change with one or more other sites of the plurality of sites; at a second site of the plurality of sites: receiving an update reflecting the data object resolution change made at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of each of the two or more data objects, data that indicates that the two or more data objects were resolved together, and for each of the two or more data objects, a version vector for the data object; comparing, for each of one or more of the two or more data objects, the version vector for the data object received in the update to a version vector at the second site for the data object to determine whether the data object resolution change and a version at the second site of the data object are identical, ordered, or concurrent; determining, based on the comparing, that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects; and in response to determining that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects, determining that the data object resolution change conflicts with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects..].

.Iadd.9. In a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites, making a first change to a set of one or more links connecting two data objects by adding or removing one or more links from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the first site with a first version vector for the set of links, the first version vector versioning the set of links separately and independently of the two data objects connected by the set of links; at a second site of the plurality of sites, making a second change to the set of links connecting the two data objects by adding or removing a link from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the second site with a second version vector for the set of links; sharing the first change with the second site of the plurality of sites; receiving, at the second site, an update reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of the set of links, data reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site, and the first version vector for the set of links; at the second site, comparing the first version vector for the set of links to the second version vector for the set of links to determine whether the first change to the set of links at the first set and the second change to the set of links at the second site are identical, ordered, or concurrent; wherein the method is performed by a plurality of computing devices..Iaddend.

.Iadd.10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are ordered..Iaddend.

.Iadd.11. The method according to claim 9, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are concurrent..Iaddend.

.Iadd.12. In a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites: resolving two or more data objects together to produce a data object resolution change; sharing the data object resolution change with one or more other sites of the plurality of sites; at a second site of the plurality of sites: receiving an update reflecting the data object resolution change made at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of each of the two or more data objects, data that indicates that the two or more data objects were resolved together, and for each of the two or more data objects, a version vector for the data object; comparing, for each of one or more of the two or more data objects, the version vector for the data object received in the update to a version vector at the second site for the data object to determine whether the data object resolution change and a version at the second site of the data object are identical, ordered, or concurrent; determining, based on the comparing, that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects; and in response to determining that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects, determining that the data object resolution change conflicts with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects; wherein the method is performed by a plurality of computing devices..Iaddend.

.Iadd.13. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by a plurality of computing devices, cause performing a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites, making a first change to a set of one or more links connecting two data objects by adding or removing one or more links from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the first site with a first version vector for the set of links, the first version vector versioning the set of links separately and independently of the two data objects connected by the set of links; at a second site of the plurality of sites, making a second change to the set of links connecting the two data objects by adding or removing a link from the set of links; wherein the set of links is associated at the second site with a second version vector for the set of links; sharing the first change with the second site of the plurality of sites; receiving, at the second site, an update reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of the set of links, data reflecting the first change to the set of links at the first site, and the first version vector for the set of links; at the second site, comparing the first version vector for the set of links to the second version vector for the set of links to determine whether the first change to the set of links at the first set and the second change to the set of links at the second site are identical, ordered, or concurrent..Iaddend.

.Iadd.14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are ordered..Iaddend.

.Iadd.15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the second change to the set of links is made at the second site before the first change to the set of links is made at the first site; and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the comparing, that the first and second changes are concurrent..Iaddend.

.Iadd.16. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by a plurality of computing devices, cause performing a method for sharing and deconflicting data changes in a multimaster database system comprising a plurality of sites, the method comprising: at a first site of the plurality of sites: resolving two or more data objects together to produce a data object resolution change; sharing the data object resolution change with one or more other sites of the plurality of sites; at a second site of the plurality of sites: receiving an update reflecting the data object resolution change made at the first site; wherein the update includes: an identification of each of the two or more data objects, data that indicates that the two or more data objects were resolved together, and for each of the two or more data objects, a version vector for the data object; comparing, for each of one or more of the two or more data objects, the version vector for the data object received in the update to a version vector at the second site for the data object to determine whether the data object resolution change and a version at the second site of the data object are identical, ordered, or concurrent; determining, based on the comparing, that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects; and in response to determining that the data object resolution change is concurrent with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects, determining that the data object resolution change conflicts with a version at the second site of at least one of the two or more data objects..Iaddend.
Description



TECHNICAL FIELD

The present disclosure generally relates to distributed computing systems and, in particular, to sharing and deconfliction of data changes in a multi-master database system.

BACKGROUND

In a multimaster database system, data is stored in a group of databases, data changes may be made to any member of the group, and data changes made to one member are propagated to the rest of the group. Multimaster database systems typically employ either a "synchronous" or an "asynchronous" replication scheme for propagating a change made to one database to the rest of the databases in the group.

In synchronous multimaster replication, each change is applied to all databases in the group immediately or to none of the databases if one or more of the databases in the group cannot accept the change. For example, one of the databases may be offline or unavailable. Synchronous multimaster replication is typically achieved using a two-phase commit protocol.

In contrast, in "asynchronous" multimaster replication, a change made to a database is immediately accepted by the database but propagation of the change to other databases in the group may be deferred. Because propagation of changes may be deferred, if one or more of the databases in the group are unavailable, the available databases can still accept changes, queuing the changes locally until they can be propagated. For this reason, multimaster database systems employing an asynchronous replication strategy are considered to be more highly available than multimaster database systems employing a synchronous replication strategy. However, asynchronous replication raises the possibility of conflicts that occur as a result of concurrent database changes.

A conflict can arise in a multimaster database system when the same data is changed in two different databases before either one of those changes can be propagated to the other. For example, assume that in database A data representing a particular person's eye color is changed to "brown", and after that change but before that change can be propagated to database B data in database B representing the particular person's eye color is changed to "green". Without additional information, it is unclear which change is the "correct" change that should be adopted by all databases in the system.

Multimaster database systems employing an asynchronous replication scheme typically provide mechanisms for "deconflicting" conflicts. As used herein, the term "deconflict", refers generally to detecting and resolving a conflict such that a resolution of the conflict is eventually adopted by all databases in the system. In some cases, the multimaster database system may be able to deconflict automatically without requiring user intervention. In other cases, user intervention may be required to determine which of the concurrent changes should be adopted.

In multimaster database systems employing asynchronous replication, when conflicts are detected has an enormous effect on the integrity of database data. For example, some database systems may support "object resolution". Object resolution involves a user or an automated computing process determining that two or more separate data objects actually represent the same real-world entity and invoking a function of the database system so that the separate data objects are resolved into a single data object. For example, assume there are two separate data objects, one having a name property value of "John Smith", the other having a name property value of "J. S.". A user may decide that these two data objects both represent the same real-world person. Accordingly, in a database system that supports object resolution, the user may invoke a function of the database system so that the two separate data objects are resolved to a single data object having a name property value of "John Smith" or "J.S." as selected by the user resolving the objects together.

In multimaster database systems employing asynchronous replication, it would be desirable to detect as a conflict concurrent changes that include an object resolution change. For example, assume that in database A, User 1 changed the hair color property of a data object representing a person named "J.S." from "brown" to "blonde". Further assume that before the hair color change made by User 1 can be propagated from database A to database B that User 2 changes database B by resolving together the data object representing "J.S." with another data object representing a person named "John Smith". It would be desirable for the multimaster database system to detect these two concurrent changes as a conflict as User 2 may not have decided to resolve "J.S." and "John Smith" together if User 2 had known that John Smith's hair color was changed by User 1. Similarly, User 1 may not have decided to change the hair color of "J.S." had User 1 known that User 2 resolved "J.S." and "John Smith" together.

What is a needed then is a multimaster database system employing asynchronous replication that detects conflicts resulting from concurrent changes in a manner that is in line with user expectations and that handles the deconfliction and propagation of such changes appropriately. Embodiments of the present invention fulfill these and other needs.

The approaches described in this section are approaches that could be pursued, but not necessarily approaches that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, it should not be assumed that any of the approaches described in this section qualify as prior art merely by virtue of their inclusion in this section.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings and in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a multimaster database system for use in sharing and deconflicting data changes amongst a plurality of replication sites according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2 illustrates an object-centric conceptual data model according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 illustrates a method for sharing a data change to a data object in a multimaster database system using per-object version vectors, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 illustrates a method for detecting and deconflicting a conflict involving concurrent changes to a data object using per-object version vectors, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 illustrates an example of detecting and deconflicting a conflict involving concurrent changes to a data object using per-object version vectors according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of sharing data changes using per-link set version vectors according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 7 illustrates a computer system with which an embodiment may be implemented.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Introduction

Referring to the figures, exemplary embodiments of the invention will now be described. The exemplary embodiments are primarily described with reference to block diagrams or flowcharts. As to the flowcharts, each block within the flowcharts represents both a method step and an apparatus element for performing the method step. Depending upon the implementation, the corresponding apparatus element may be configured in hardware, software, firmware, or combinations thereof.

Further, in the following description, for the purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be apparent, however, that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, block diagrams include well-known structures and devices in order to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the present invention.

Overview

According to one or more embodiments of the present invention, a multimaster database system and computer-based method therein provide sharing and deconfliction of data changes amongst a plurality of replication sites.

In a particular embodiment, data changes at sites to data objects are tracked by each site on a per-data object basis using per-data object version vectors. The method includes a first computing device at a first site making a change to a data object. The first computing device shares the change to the data object with one or more other sites. A second computing device at a second site receives an update reflecting the change to the data object made by the first computing device at the first site. The update includes an identification of the data object, data reflecting the change to the data object, and a version vector for the data object at the first site. The second computing device obtains a version vector for the data object at the second site and compares the version vector of the data object at the first site to the version vector of the data object at the second site to determine whether the two version vectors are identical, ordered, or concurrent. Based on this comparison, the second site either attempts to automatically deconflict the two versions of the data object if, according to their version vectors, they are concurrent, or automatically incorporates the received update into the second site's copy of the data object if, according to their version vectors, the version of the data object at the second site is ordered before the version received in the update.

In another particular embodiment, data changes at sites to links connecting two data objects are tracked on a per-link set basis using per-link set version vectors. The method includes a first computing device at a first site making a change to a set of links connecting two data objects. The first computing device shares the change to the link set with one or more other sites. A second computing device at a second site receives an update reflecting the change to the link set made by the first computing device at the first site. The update includes an identification of the link set and a version vector for the link set at the first site. The second computing device obtains a version vector for the link set at the second site and compares the version vector for link set at the first site to the version vector of the link set at the second site to determine whether the two version vectors are identical, ordered, or concurrent. Based on this comparison, the second site either attempts to automatically deconflict the two versions of the link set if, according to their version vectors, they are concurrent, or automatically incorporates the received update into the second site's copy of the link set if, according to their version vectors, the version of the link set at the second site is ordered before the version received in the update.

In another particular embodiment, per-object version vectors are used to detect a conflict resulting from concurrent changes at two or more sites in which at least one of the concurrent changes includes an object resolution change. The method includes a first computing device at a first site of the plurality of sites resolving two or more data objects together via an object resolution feature of a database system or database application. The first computing device shares the resolution change with one or more other sites of the plurality of sites. A second computing device receives an update reflecting the resolution change made by the first computing device at the first site. The update includes an identification of each of the two or more data objects that were resolved together, and, for each of the two or more data objects, a version vector of the data object at the first site. The second computing device obtains, for each of the two or more data objects, a version vector of the data object at the second site. The second computing device compares, for each of the two or more data objects, the version vector of the data object at the first site to the version vector of the data object at the second site to determine whether the two versions are identical, ordered, or concurrent. In response to the second computing device determining that the version vector of at least one data object of the two or more data objects at the first site is concurrent with the version vector of the at least one data object at the second site, the second computing device determines that the resolution change made by the first computing device at the first site conflicts with the version of the at least one data object at the second site.

Other embodiments include, without limitation, a computer-readable non-transitory medium that includes processor-executable instructions that enable a processing unit to implement one or more aspects of the disclosed methods as well as a system configured to implement one or more aspects of the disclosed methods.

Multimaster Database System with Deconfliction Engine

FIG. 1 illustrates a multimaster database system 100 for use in sharing and deconflicting data changes amongst a plurality of replication sites according to an embodiment of the invention. In one embodiment, sites 101, 102, and 103 are coupled through one or more data networks such as the Internet, one or more wide area networks (WANs), one or more local area networks (LANs), one or more network communication buses, or some combination thereof. It is not necessary that a highly or continuously available data network exist between replication sites and the data network(s) connecting any two sites may only be periodically available. In another embodiment, one or more of the sites are not connected to any other site in the system and data is transported to and from these sites manually using portable media or a portable media device as such as a Compact Disc (CD), a Digital Versatile Disc (DVD), Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash device, etc.

Each site 101, 102, and 103 may comprise one or more networked computing devices such as one or more workstation computers, server computers, laptop computers, mobile computing devices, or combinations thereof connected to each other via one or more data networks. Further, while only three sites are shown in FIG. 1, multimaster database system 100 may comprise many hundreds or even many thousands of geographically distributed sites.

According to one embodiment, each site 101, 102, and 103 each have copies 111, 112, and 113 of the same body of data. The body of data may be, for example, one or more tables in a relational database. However, embodiments of the invention are not limited to relational databases and any type of database capable of supporting the conceptual data model described herein may be used. Non-limiting examples of types of databases capable of supporting the conceptual data model described herein include relational databases, hierarchical databases, and object-oriented databases.

With respect to that particular body of data, site 101 may be configured to asynchronously propagate to site 102 changes made to copy 111, and asynchronously propagate to site 103 changes made to copy 111. Similarly, site 102 may be configured to asynchronously propagate to site 101 changes made to copy 112, and asynchronously propagate to site 103 changes made to copy 212. Site 103 may be configured to asynchronously propagate to both sites 101 and 102 changes made to copy 113. However, it is not necessary that each site be configured to propagate to every other site changes made to its copy of the body of data. In other words, a full-meshed multimaster site topology is not required to implement embodiments of the invention and partially-meshed or cascading multimaster topologies may be used.

As system 100 employs an asynchronous replication scheme, each copy 111, 112, and 113 of the body of data is loosely consistent with the other copies. That is, each copy may diverge from time to time such that at any given moment one copy's view of the body of data may be different from another copy's view of the body of data. In the absence of new changes, the copies are expected to eventually become consistent with one another. Thus, as well as being loosely consistent with one another, the copies 112, 112, 113, etc. can also be said to be eventually consistent.

Each site 101, 102, and 103 has deconfliction logic 120 for receiving remote changes to the body of data from other sites, detecting conflicts, deconflicting detected conflicts either automatically or with user assistance, and sharing local changes to the body of data with other sites. Deconfliction logic 120 may be implemented as one or more computer software programs, one or more field programmable logics, hard-wired logic, or a combination thereof. In one embodiment, deconfliction logic 120 is a software component of a database management system such as those commercially available from the Oracle Corporation of Redwood Shores, Calif. and the Microsoft Corporation of Redmond Wash. In another embodiment, deconfliction logic 120 is software component of a web-based, server-based or desktop application that uses a database management system for performing the deconfliction techniques described herein. In yet another embodiment, deconfliction logic 120 is implemented in part by a web-based, server-based or desktop application and in part by a database management system.

As used herein, the term "change", unless otherwise apparent from the surrounding text, refers to an addition, edit, or deletion to a copy of the body of data at a site. A change can be initiated by a user or a computing process. In addition, a change can also be initiated by deconfliction logic 120 in response to receiving notification of a previous change made at a site different from the site receiving the notification.

As used herein, the term "update", unless otherwise apparent from the surrounding text, refers to information about a change that is sent from the site that made the change to another site. Each change may result in an update being received by every other site so that the other sites can incorporate the change into their respective copies of the body of data. Reception of an update at a site may raise a conflict with the receiving site's copy of the body of data. Techniques implemented by deconfliction logic 120 for detecting and deconflicting conflicts in various scenarios are described in greater detail below.

Object-Centric Data Model

In one embodiment, the body of data, of which each site 101, 102, and 103 maintains a copy of, is conceptually structured according to an object-centric data model. It should be understood that this conceptual data model is independent of any particular database data model that may be used for storing a copy of the body of data at a site. For example, each object of the conceptual data model may correspond to one or more rows in a relational database or an entry in Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) database.

FIG. 2 illustrates an object-centric conceptual data model 200 according to an embodiment. Model 200 is centered on the notion of a data object 201. At the highest level of abstraction, data object 201 is a container for information representing things in the world. For example, data object 201 can represent an entity such as a person, a place, an organization, or other noun. Data object 201 can represent an event that happens at a point in time or for a duration. Data object 201 can represent a document or other unstructured data source such as an e-mail message, a news report, or a written paper or article. At a minimum, each data object 201 is associated with a unique identifier that uniquely identifies the data object within system 100. Each data object 201 may also have a type (e.g., Person, Event, or Document) and a display name which may be the value of a particular property of the data object.

Each data object 201 may have one or more properties 203. Properties 203 are attributes of the data object 201 that represent individual data items. At a minimum, each property 203 of a data object 201 has a type and a value. Different types of data objects may have different types of properties. For example, a Person data object might have an Eye Color property and an Event object might have a Date property. In one embodiment, the set of data object types and the set of property types for each type of data object supported by the system 100 are defined according to a pre-defined or user-defined ontology or other hierarchical structuring of knowledge through sub-categorization of object types and property types according to their relevant and/or cognitive qualities. In addition, data model 200 may support property multiplicity. In particular, a data object 201 may be allowed to have more than one property 203 of the same type. For example, a Person data object might have multiple Address properties or multiple Name properties.

Each link 202 represents a connection between two data objects 201. In one embodiment, the connection is either through a relationship, an event, or through matching properties.

A relationship connection may be asymmetrical or symmetrical. For example, Person data object A may be connected to Person data object B by a Child Of relationship (where Person data object B has an asymmetric Parent Of relationship to Person data object A), a Kin Of symmetric relationship to Person data object C, and an asymmetric Member Of relationship to Organization data object X. The type of relationship between two data objects may vary depending on the types of the data objects. For example, Person data object A may have an Appear In relationship with Document data object Y or have a Participate In relationship with Event data object E.

As an example of an event connection, two Person data objects may be connected by an Airline Flight data object representing a particular airline flight if they traveled together on that flight, or by a Meeting data object representing a particular meeting if they both attended that meeting. In one embodiment, when two data objects are connected by an event, they are also connected by relationships, in which each object has a specific relationship to the event, such as, for example, an Appears In relationship.

As an example of a matching properties connection, two Person data objects representing a brother and a sister, may both have an Address property that indicates where they live. If the brother and the sister live in the same home, then their Address properties likely contain similar, if not identical information. In one embodiment, a link between two data objects may be established based on similar or matching properties of the data objects.

The above are just some examples of the types of connections that may be represented by a link and other types of connections may be represented. Thus, it should be understood that embodiments of the invention are not limited to any particular types of connections between data objects. For example, a document might contain two different tagged entities. A link between two data objects may represent a connection between these two entities through their co-occurrence within the same document.

Each data object 201 can have multiple links with another data object 201 to form a link set 204. For example, two Person data objects representing a husband and a wife could be linked through a Spouse Of relationship, a matching property (Address), and an event (Wedding).

In one embodiment, data model 200 supports object resolution. As mentioned above, object resolution includes a user or an automated computing process determining that two or more separate data objects 201 actually represent the same real-world entity and invoking a function of the system 100 at a site 101, 102, 103, etc. so that the separate data objects appear to users of the system 100 as if they were a single data object. In one embodiment, when one data object 201 is resolved together with another data object 201 the properties and links of one data object are copied to the other data object and then deleted from the data object from which they were copied. However, both data objects are still retained by the system. As well as facilitating the ability to un-resolve data objects that were previously resolved together, retaining data objects after resolving them together facilitates detection and deconfliction of conflicts as described in greater detail below.

Per-Data Object Version Vectors

A version vector is known mechanism for tracking changes in distributed systems. However, version vectors are typically employed on a per-site basis. That is, with typical implementations of version vectors in distributed systems, each site uses a single version vector to track all changes made to the copy of the database maintained by that site.

In accordance with an embodiment of the invention, in order to track and to deconflict changes to the body of data, each site 101, 102, 103, etc. maintains version vectors on a per-data object basis. By doing so, conflicts involving changes to properties of data objects and conflicts involving object resolution changes can be appropriately detected and deconflicted as explained in greater detail below.

In one embodiment, each site maintains one version vector for each data object managed by the system. Thus, for a system having m sites managing n data objects, each site will maintain n version vectors for a total of m*n version vectors maintained by all m sites. Each version vector may contain up to m elements, one for each of the m sites. Each element of a version vector holds a value representing a logical clock for the associated data object at the site corresponding to the element. In a practical embodiment, to conserve data storage space, data maintained at a site representing a version vector may not represent all m elements, but instead some subset of the m elements. For example, elements of a version vector that have a default value may not be represented.

Each site has, in each version vector that the site maintains, its own logical clock value as one of the elements. This logical clock value represents the version of the associated data object at the site maintaining the version vector. Each other element in the version vector represents the site's best guess based on the updates the site has received of the version of the associated data object at the site corresponding to the other element.

In one embodiment, each element of a version vector is set to some initial value (e.g., zero). When a site changes one or more properties of a data object in a database transaction against the site's copy of the body of data, the site increments its own logical clock in the version vector associated with the data object by a fixed value (e.g., one). When sharing the change with other sites as an update, the site includes in the update data representing the change to the data object and data representing the site's version vector for the data object after the increment. A site receiving the update can compare the version vector in the update with its own version vector for the data object to determine whether the version of the data object at the receiving site and the version of the data object in the update are: (1) identical, (2) ordered, or (3) concurrent.

Known techniques for comparing two version vectors to determine whether the two versions are identical, ordered, or concurrent can be used. In one embodiment, comparing two version vectors includes comparing each element in one version vector with the corresponding element in the other version vector. Correspondence between elements is determined based on the site the elements correspond to. In particular, the element for a site in one version vector is compared against the element for the same site in the other version vector. Two versions are identical if each element in one version vector equals the corresponding element in the other version vector. The two versions are ordered if one version "happened before" the other. Version vector A happened before version vector B if each element in version vector B is greater than or equal to the corresponding element in version vector A and at least one element in the version vector B is greater than the corresponding element in version vector A. Similarly, version vector B happened before version vector A if each element in version vector A is greater than or equal to the corresponding element in version vector B and at least one element in the version vector A is greater than the corresponding element in version vector B. Two versions are concurrent if they are neither identical nor ordered.

Sharing Changes to Data Objects Using Per-Object Version Vectors

FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 for sharing a data change to a data object in a multimaster database system using per-object version vectors, according to an embodiment of the invention. As shown, the method 300 begins at step 305 where a site makes a change to a local copy of a data object stored in the site's copy of the body of data. For example, a user may use a database application at the site to add, delete, or edit one or more properties of the data object.

In one embodiment, as part of changing a data object at a site, each change results in a new version of the data object at the site. At step 310, the site's local logical clock in the version vector for the data object is incremented by a fixed value (e.g., one) to reflect the new version of the data object at the site where the change was made. The other elements in the version vector are not incremented.

In one embodiment, each change to a data object at a site is shared with every other site in the system. Depending on the topology of the multimaster system (e.g., full-meshed or partially meshed), a site making a change may communicate with every other site to share the change, or just some subset of them that are responsible for communicating the change with other sites. At step 315, the change made at step 305 is shared with at least one other site in the system. Sharing the change includes sending, to the at least one other site, data that represents the change and data that represents the version vector for the changed data object after the increment at step 310.

In one embodiment, data that represents the change includes an identifier of the data object and a materialized representation of the data object including all properties of the data object. In another embodiment, data that represents the change includes an identifier of the data object but just the properties of the data object affected by the change. Data that represents the version vector for the changed data object need not include a representation of each element of the version vector and in a practical embodiment, data representing only a subset of all possible elements of the version vector is shared with the at least one other site.

Detecting and Deconflicting Conflicts Involving Changes to Data Objects Using Per-Object Version Vectors

FIG. 4 illustrates a method 400 for detecting and deconflicting a conflict involving concurrent changes to a data object using per-object version vectors, according to an embodiment of the invention. As shown, the method 400 begins at step 405 where a site receives an update for a data object from another site. The update includes data that represents a change to the data object including an identifier of the changed data object and data that represents the version vector for the changed data object. The version vector represents the version of the data object at the site that made the change immediately after the change was made. For clarity of explanation, the version vector for the changed data object received in the update will be referred to as the changing site's version vector for the data object.

At step 410, the site receiving the update obtains locally its version vector for the data object based on the identifier of the data object included in the update and compares its version vector with the changing site's version vector to determine whether the two versions are identical, ordered, or concurrent. As mentioned above, this comparison includes comparing the changing site's version vector with the receiving site's version vector on an element by element basis.

At step 415, a determination is made whether the changing site's version for the data object received in the update and the receiving site's version vector for the data object are concurrent. If the two versions are concurrent, then a conflict has been detected. That is, the version of the data object at the receiving site reflects a change to the data object made without knowledge of the change received in the update and the version of the data object received in the update reflects a change to the data object made without knowledge of the change that the receiving site is aware of. If a conflict is detected, then the method 400 proceeds to step 420 where the concurrent changes resulting in the conflict is either automatically or manually deconflicted.

At step 420, an initial determination is made whether the conflict can be automatically deconflicted. In one embodiment, determining whether a conflict can be automatically deconflicted is based on a set of heuristics and/or deconfliction rules. The set of heuristics and/or deconfliction rules may be user defined. For example, in one embodiment, determining whether a conflict can be automatically deconflicted includes determining whether the concurrent changes involve changes to non-overlapping properties or non-overlapping property types of the data object. For example, if the change received in the update is to a Phone Number property of a particular Person data object and the change the receiving site is aware of is to an Address property of the particular data object, then the system may automatically determine that both changes can accepted. In one embodiment, non-overlapping properties are detected at the receiving site by performing a property by property comparison between the changing site's version of the data object received in the update and the receiving site's version of the data object.

If the conflict cannot be automatically deconflicted, then the receiving site holds the update in a pending update queue for the data object until it can be deconflicted with the .[.aide.]. .Iadd.aid .Iaddend.of user input. For example, the receiving site may not be able to automatically deconflict a conflict if the concurrent changes involve changes to the same property of a data object. For example, if the change received in the update is to a Phone Number property of a particular Person data object and the change to the data object the receiving site is aware of is also to the Phone Number property of the particular data object, then the receiving site may not be able to automatically resolve the conflict. While an update to a data object remains in the receiving site's pending update queue for the data object, the receiving site can continue to make changes to the data object and accept and apply updates to the data object received from other sites until the user either discards or accepts the update.

In one embodiment, to help a user make an informed deconfliction decision when manually deconflicting a conflict involving concurrent changes to a data object, the deconflicting site determines the greatest common ancestor at the deconflicting site of (a) the version of the data object in the pending update queue at the deconflicting site (pending version) and (b) the current version of the data object at the deconflicting site (current version). The greatest common ancestor of these two versions is determined as the most recent version of the data object at the deconflicting site that is ordered before (i.e., happened before) both (a) the pending version of the data object and (b) the current version of the data object according to their respective version vectors. An application at the deconflicting site uses the greatest common ancestor information to present to a user the differences between both: (1) the greatest common ancestor version of the data object and the pending version and (2) the greatest common ancestor version and the current version. For example, the application may present a graphical user interface that provides a visual indication of the property-wise differences so that a user can understand the nature of the concurrent changes and indicate which version of the data object is correct. Based on presentation of the differences (1) and (2), the user can determine which one of the two versions for the data object is the correct version for the data object and provide an indication through the application of the selected version.

At step 425, the deconfliction of the concurrent changes in step 420 results in a change to the receiving site's local copy of the data object. The change to the data object reflects the result of the deconfliction. For example, if it was determined in step 420 that the concurrent changes involved non-overlapping properties, then the change made to the data object at step 425 might involve modifying the receiving site's local copy of the data object to incorporate the changed non-overlapping properties received in the update.

After the change is made to the receiving site's local copy of the data object, at step 430, the changing site's version vector for the data object is merged together with the receiving site's version vector for the data object. Merging the two version vectors includes merging each element in the changing site's version vector for the data object with the corresponding element in the receiving site's version vector for the data object. Merging two elements includes choosing the numerically greater of the two elements as the value of the element in the new version vector. What is produced by this merging at step 430 is a new version vector that is ordered after both the receiving site's version vector for the data object and the changing site's version vector for the data object. Stated otherwise, the receiving site's version vector for the data object and the changing site's version vector now both happened before the new version vector. After the two version vectors are merged, the receiving site's version vector for the data object is replaced with the new version vector which then becomes the version vector for the data object at the receiving site.

Step 435 is similar to a combination of steps 310 and 315 of method 300. At step 435, the receiving site's logical clock in the version vector for the data object is incremented by a fixed value (e.g., one) to reflect the change made at step 425 as a result of the deconfliction at step 420. The other elements in the version vector are not incremented. In addition, at step 430, the change(s) to the receiving site's copy of the data object are shared with other site(s) in the system.

If, at step 415, the receiving site determines that the changing site's version vector for the data object and the receiving site's version vector for the data object are either identical or ordered (i.e., not concurrent), then, at step 440, the receiving site either incorporates the update into the receiving site's local copy of the data object or discards the update. In one embodiment, the receiving site incorporates the update into the receiving site's local copy of the data object if the receiving site's version vector for the data object is ordered before (i.e., happened before) the changing site's version vector for the data object. Incorporating the update into the receiving site's local copy of the data object includes overwriting data object information in the receiving site's local copy with the superseding changes for the data object included in the update. In one embodiment, the receiving site discards the update if the receiving site's version vector for the data object is identical to the changing site's version vector for the data object. The receiving site may also discard the update if the changing site's version vector for the data object is ordered before (i.e., happened before) the receiving site's version vector for the data object. In this latter case, the update represents an old change that was already incorporated into and been superseded by the receiving site's version of the data object.

If, at step 435, the update was incorporated into the receiving site's local copy of the data object, then, at step 450, the changing site's version vector for the data object is merged together with the receiving site's version vector for the data object to produce a new version vector for the data object at the receiving site. Step 450 is similar to step 430. However, unlike the case where the received update to the data object is in conflict with the receiving site's version of the data object, the new version vector for the data object at the receiving site is not incremented after merging the receiving site's version vector for the data object and the changing site's version vector for the data object.

Method 300 and method 400 of FIGS. 3 and 4 will now be further explained by example with reference to FIG. 5. FIG. 5 illustrates an example of sharing and deconflicting data changes in multimaster system 100. Logical time proceeds downward from the top of the figure to the bottom as events occur at the sites 101, 102, and 103. As shown, each site 101, 102, and 103 initially has identical copies of the same data object. The data object has two attributes: a Type attribute and a Name attribute. The Type attribute is set to the value "Person" and the Name attribute is set to the value "J.S." in each copy of the data object at each site. In addition, each site 101, 102, and 103 maintains a version vector for the data object. Initially, the version vectors are identical (i.e., <1, 0, 0>) reflecting that each site has the same version of the data object. Each version vector has three elements, one for each site 101, 102, and 103. In the example depicted in FIG. 5, the first (leftmost) element of each version vector corresponds to site 101, the second (middle) element of each version vector corresponds to site 102, and the third (rightmost) element of each version vector corresponds to site 103.

At event 503 at site 101, a local change is made to site 101's copy of the data object. In particular, the Name property is changed from "J.S." to "John Smith". In accordance with step 310 of method 300, site 101's logical clock for the data object is incremented by a fixed value. In the example, site 101's logical clock in the version vector for the data object is incremented from 1 to 2.

In accordance with step 315 of method 300, at event 505, site 101 shares the change to its copy of the data object with site 102. In particular, an update is sent from site 101 to site 102. In one embodiment, the update includes an identifier of the data object, data representing the change made, and data representing site 101's version vector for the data object (e.g., <2, 0, 0>).

At event 507, the update sent from site 101 is received at site 102. In accordance with step 410 of method 400, the version vector for the data object received in the update <2, 0, 0> is compared against site 102's current version vector for the data object <1, 0, 0>. Such comparison reveals that sites 102's version vector happened before (is ordered before) site 101's version vector. Thus, the update received at site 102 reflecting the change made at site 101 does not conflict with site 102's version of the data object. In accordance with step 440 of method 400, site 102 incorporates the change received in the update into its local copy of the data object with the change received in the update superseding any differing properties of site 102's copy of the data object. In particular, the value of the Name property in site 102's copy of the data object is changed from "J.S." to "John Smith". In accordance with step 450 of method 400, Site 101's version vector for the data object received in the update is merged with site 102's version vector to produce a new version vector for the data object at site 102 of <2, 0, 0>.

At event 509, site 101's update is propagated by site 102 to site 103. In one embodiment, site 102 is configured to perform such propagation as part of a partially-meshed or cascading multimaster replication topology. In an alternative embodiment, instead of relying on site 102 to propagate the update, site 101 communicates the update to both site 102 and site 103 as part of a fully meshed multimaster replication topology. At event 511, site 103 receives the update and incorporates the update into its local copy of the data object and merges version vectors by performing steps similar to those performed by site 102 at event 507.

Event 513 and event 515 represent concurrent changes to the data object. In particular, at site 102 a Phone # property is added to the data object. At site 103, an Address property is added to the data object. In accordance with step 310 of method 300, site 102 and site 103 both increment their logical clock for the data object. At event 517, site 102 sends an update to site 103 reflecting the addition of the Phone # property. At event 519, site 103 sends an update to site 102 reflecting the addition of the Address property. Although not shown in FIG. 5, sites 102 and 103 may also communicate updates to other sites in the system (e.g., site 101). At event 521, site 102 receives the update sent from site 103 and detects the conflict. In particular, the version vector received in the update from site 103 (i.e., <2, 0, 1>) is not identical to, nor ordered before or after, the version vector for the object at site 102 (i.e., <2, 1, 0>). In accordance with step 420 of method 400, site 102 attempts to automatically deconflict the conflict based on a pre-specified set of heuristics and/or deconfliction rules. In the example of FIG. 5, site 102 compares its copy of the data object with the version of the data object received in the update and determines that the concurrent changes involve changes to non-overlapping properties. Thus, at event 512, site 102 determines that the conflict can be automatically deconflicting and updates its local copy of the data object accordingly. In particular, the Address property received in the update is added to site 102's local copy of the data object. Further, in accordance with step 430 of method 400, site 102's version vector for the data object is merged with site 103's version vector for the data object received in the update and the resulting version vector becomes the new version vector for the data object at site 102. Then, in accordance with step 435 of method 400, site 102 increments its logical clock in the version vector for the data object by one to produce a .[.newe.]. .Iadd.new .Iaddend.version vector for the data object at site 102 of <2, 2, 1>.

At event 523, site 103 performs a process similar to what site 102 performs at event 521.

Avoiding Needless Repetitive Updates

After event 521 at site 102 and after event 523 at site 103, site 102 and site 103 both have identical copies of the data object. However, site 102 and site 103 have different version vectors for the data object. In the example, site 102 has a version vector for the data object of <2, 2, 1> and site 103 has a version vector for the data object of <2, 1, 2>. In accordance with step 435 of method 400, site 102 and site 103 may send an update to each other reflecting their respective automatic deconfliction operations performed at events 521 and 523 respectively. When received by the other site, these updates will be detected as conflict. For example, site 102's version vector <2, 2, 1> is not identical, nor ordered before or after, site 103's version vector <2, 1, 2>. If no corrective action is taken, site 102 and site 103 will repeatedly and needlessly deconflict, increment their logical clocks for the data object, and send updates to each other even though both sites have identical copies of the data object.

In one embodiment, to avoid needless repetitive updates, at step 420 of method 400, after a conflict has been detected, a comparison is made between the version of the data object received in the update and the receiving site's version of the data object. If the two versions are identical, then only a merge of the two version vectors is performed (step 430). The receiving site's local copy of the data object is not changed and the receiving site's logical clock in the version vector for the data object is not incremented (i.e., steps 425 and 435 are not performed). In one embodiment, this comparison includes a property by property comparison between the two versions of the data object.

For example, returning to FIG. 5, at event 529, site 102 receives an update from site 103 indicating that site 103 added the Phone # property to its copy of the data object and including its current version vector for the data object of <2, 1, 2>. Upon receiving this update, site 102 detects a conflict because its version vector <2, 2, 1> is not identical to, nor ordered before or after, site 103's version vector <2, 1, 2>. Site 102 compares its version of the data object with the version of the data object received in the update from site 103. Upon determining that the versions are identical (i.e., both versions have the same properties with the same values), site 102 merges the two version vectors to produce a new version vector for the data object at site 102 of <2, 2, 2>. Site 103 performs a similar process at event 531 to arrive at the same version vector <2, 2, 2>. Now that both version vectors are identical, a conflict may .[.not.]. .Iadd.no .Iaddend.longer be detected and updates relating to the previous deconfliction no longer propagated by the sites.

Per-Link Set Version Vectors

In one embodiment, links connecting two data objects are versioned separately and independently from the data objects connected by the links. In particular, the set of links connecting two objects is associated with its own version vector separate from the versions vectors associated with the two objects. Each site maintains a version vector for each link set. Changes to a link set at a site including adding a link to the set or removing a link from the set result in the site incrementing its local logical clock for the link set and the site sharing the change to the link set with other sites. The versions vectors associated with copies of a link set at the sites can be used to detect and deconflict conflicts involving concurrent changes to two different copies of the same link set in a manner similar that described above for how per-object version vectors can be used to detect and deconflict conflicts involving concurrent changes to two different copies of the same data object.

In addition, per-link set version vectors allow sites to automatically incorporate a concurrent change that includes a change to a link set and a change to a data object connected to another data object by the link set. For example, assume Site A and Site B have the same version of data object X and the same version of data object Y. Further, assume that Site A's version vector for data object X is identical to Site B's version vector for data object X and that Site A's version vector for data object Y is identical to Site B's version vector for data object Y. If a local change is made to data object X at Site A (e.g., by adding a new property), then Site A increments its local logical clock in the version vector for data object X and sends an update to Site B. Assume that, before Site B receives the update regarding the change to data object X at Site A, a local change is made at Site B linking data object X and data object Y. According to one embodiment, this causes Site B to increment its local logical clock in the version vector for the link set connecting data objects X and Y. However, in this case, Site B does not increment its local logical clock for either data object X or data object Y. Site B then sends an update to Site A reflecting the change to the link set between data objects X and Y. Upon receiving the update from Site B regarding the link set change, Site A incorporates the update such that data object X as modified by the change at Site A is linked to data object Y. Similarly, upon receiving the update from Site A regarding the change to data object X, Site B incorporates the update such that data object X as modified by the change at Site A is linked to data object Y. After the updates have been shared with each other, both Site A and Site B have identical copies of data object X and data object Y and identical copies of the links set connected data objects X and Y.

This example is illustrated in FIG. 6. As shown, initially Site A and Site B have the same version of data object X and the same version of data object Y. Events 603 and 605 represent concurrent changes. In particular, at event 603, a local change is made to data object X at Site A. For example, a change is made involving a property of data object X. Concurrently, at event 605, a local change is made at Site B linking data object X and data object Y For example, if data object X and data object Y each represent a particular person, they may be linked through a Friend Of relationship. At event 607, Site A shares its change to data object X with Site B and includes its version vector for data object X<2, 0, 0> in its update. At event 609, Site B shares its change to the X-Y link set and includes its version vector for the X-Y link set <1, 0, 0> in its update. Both sites receive and incorporate each other's updates into their respective copies of the database at events 611 and 613. Note that in this example there is no detected conflict between the concurrent changes because the set of links connecting data objects X and Y is versioned separately and independently of the data objects X and Y themselves.

Using Per-Object Version Vectors to Detect Object Resolution Conflicts

As mentioned, some database systems may support "object resolution". Object resolution involves a user or an automated computing process determining that two or more separate data objects actually represent the same real-world entity and invoking a function of the database system so that the separate data objects are resolved together into a single data object. For example, assume there are two separate data objects, one having a Name property value of "John Smith", the other having a Name property value of "J. S.". A user may decide that these two data objects both represent the same real-world person. Accordingly, in a database system that supports object resolution, the user may invoke a function of the database system so that the two separate data objects are resolved to a single data object having a name property value of "John Smith" or "J.S." as selected by the user resolving the objects together.

In multimaster database systems employing asynchronous replication, it would be desirable to detect as a conflict concurrent changes that include an object resolution change. For example, assume that in database A, User 1 changed the hair color property of a data object representing a person named "J.S." from "brown" to "blonde". Further assume that before the hair color change made by User 1 can be propagated from database A to database B that User 2 changes database B by resolving together the data object representing "J.S." with another data object representing a person named "John Smith". It would be desirable for the multimaster database system to detect these two concurrent changes as a conflict as User 2 may not have decided to resolve "J.S." and "John Smith" together if User 2 had known that John Smith's hair color was changed by User 1. Similarly, User 1 may not have decided to change the hair color of "J.S." had User 1 known that User 2 resolved "J.S." and "John Smith" together.

In one embodiment, per-object version vectors are used to detect as a conflict a concurrent change involving an object resolution change. In particular, when a site resolves two or more objects together, the site increments each local logical clock at the site in each version vector for each data object resolved together. The resolution of the data objects is then shared as an update with other sites. The update includes the sharing site's resulting version vectors for each of the data objects that were resolved together.

According to one embodiment, a site receiving the update detects a conflict by comparing each version vector for each data object in the object resolution update with its version vector for the corresponding data object. If any of the version vectors are concurrent, then a conflict is detected. The resolution of the objects is incorporated into the receiving site's copy of the database only if each and every version vector received the update is identical to or ordered after the corresponding version vector at the receiving site.

As an example, assume data object X at site 101 of FIG. 1 has version vector <1, 0, 0> and data object Y at site 101 has version vector <1, 0, 0>. When data objects X and Y are resolved together at site 101, each logical clock for data objects X and Y at site 101 is incremented by a fixed value (e.g., one) giving a version vector at site 101 of <2, 0, 0,> for data object X and a version vector at site 101 of <2, 0, 0> for data object Y. When the object resolution change at site 101 is shared by site 101 with other sites (e.g., site 102 and site 103), the update includes data indicating the object resolution change (i.e., that data objects X and Y were resolved together) and site 101's version vectors for the data objects that were resolved together (e.g., <2, 0, 0> for data object X and <2, 0, 0> for data object Y). Further assume that a change concurrent with the object resolution change made at site 101 is made to data object X at site 102 thereby changing the version vector for data object X at site 102 from <1, 0, 0> to <1, 1, 0>. For example, a property of data object X is modified at site 102. Upon receiving the update sent from site 101 regarding the object resolution change, site 102 will detect these concurrent changes as a conflict. A conflict will be detected at site 102 because a version vector for at least one data object received in the object resolution update from site 101 is concurrent with the version vector for the data object at site 102. In particular, the version vector for data object X received in the update <2, 0, 0> is concurrent with the version vector for data object X at site 102 <1, 1, 0>. In response to detecting the conflict, site 102 may attempt to automatically deconflict the conflict according to pre-defined heuristics and/or deconfliction rules, or may require input from a user to deconflict the conflict.

Object Resolution Aware Happens After (RAHA)

In one embodiment, a site receiving an update involving a change to a data object that has been resolved together at the receiving site with one or more other data objects will be applied at the receiving site only if each and every data object resolved together at the receiving site is available in the update. If each and every data object is not available in the update, then the update may be placed in the receiving site's pending update queue. A process at the receiving site periodically scans the pending update queue for updates that, when combined, include each and every data object resolved together at the receiving site. If the scanning process discovers such a combination, then the updates may be applied atomically in combination at the receiving site.

For example, consider the following events that occur in system 100 of FIG. 1:

(1) Both site 101 and site 102 have copies of data objects X, Y, and Z each at version <1, 0, 0>. Further, data objects X, Y, and Z are resolved together at both site 101 and site 102.

(2) At site 101, data object X is unresolved from data objects Y and Z. Each version vector at site 101 is incremented such that each data object X, Y, and Z is now at version <2, 0, 0> at site 101.

(3) Site 101 sends an update to site 102 that includes data representing data object X at version <2, 0, 0> and data representing the resolution of data objects Y and Z each at version <2, 0, 0>.

(4) Site 102 receives the update from site 101 and places the update in its pending update queue. The update is placed in the pending update queue because neither data object X at version <2, 0, 0> nor the resolution of data objects Y and Z each at version <2, 0, 0> includes all the data objects in the resolution of data objects X, Y, and Z each at version <1, 0, 0> at site 102.

(5) A scanning process at site 102 scans the pending update queue for updates that, when combined, include each and every of the data objects X, Y, and Z resolved together at site 102. The scanning process finds the updates received from site 102 in the pending update for data objects X, Y, and Z and applies them to site 102's copy of the body data after which both site 101 and site 102 have data object X at version <2, 0, 0> unresolved from resolved data objects Y and Z, each at version <2, 0, 0>.

Per-Site Global Acknowledgement Version Vectors

In one embodiment, to aid in determining what changes should be shared with other sites in the system, each site maintains a single global acknowledgement version vector which the site periodically shares with other sites in the system. A site's global acknowledgement version vector reflects a merging of all version vectors for all changes successfully applied to the site's local copy of the shared body of data. When a sending site shares a change with a receiving site, the receiving system is guaranteed to have successfully already received all changes that are ordered before (i.e., happened before) the receiving site's global acknowledgement version vector. Thus, the sending site need not send those changes to the receiving site that are ordered before (i.e., happened before) the receiving site's global acknowledgement version vector.

In one embodiment, changes in the pending update queue at a site are shared with other sites even though the updates are pending and have not yet been deconflicted. This is done for correctness in systems in which the replication topology is cyclic and/or dynamic. For example, consider system 100 of FIG. 1 in which all three sites 101, 102, and 103 are configured to share changes with each other. Further consider the following events that occur in system 100:

(1) Site 101 sends to site 102 an update for data object A at version <1, 0, 0> and an update for data object B at version <1, 0, 0>.

(2) Concurrent with event (1), site 102 edits object A to version <0, 1, 0>.

(3) Site 102, upon receiving the update for object B a version <1, 0, 0,> from site 101, applies the update to its local copy of object B. Site 102, upon receiving the update for data object A at version <1, 0, 0> from site 101, places the update in a pending update queue at site 102.

(4) Site 102 sends to site 103 an update for data object A at version <0, 1, 0> and an update for data object B at version <1, 0, 0>.

(5) Site 103, up receiving the update for object B at version <1, 0, 0> from site 102, applies the update to its local copy of object B. Site 103, upon receiving the update for data object A at version <0, 1, 0> from site 102, applies the update to its local copy of object A. Site 103's global acknowledgement version vector is at <1, 1, 0> as a result of merging the version vector for data object A at version <0, 1, 0> and the version vector for data object B at version <1, 0, 0>.

In this example, if, at event (4), the update for data object A at version <1, 0, 0> in site 102's pending update queue is not also shared with site 103, then site 103 may never receive the update because site 103's global acknowledgment version vector indicates that site 103 has already received the update. Thus, according to one embodiment, site 102 at event (4) will also share with site 103 the update in its pending update queue for data object A at version <1, 0, 0>. This is so even though the update has not yet been deconflicted. In one embodiment, the pending update is also stored in site 103's pending update queue. In this situation, the conflict can now be deconflicted at either site 102 or site 103.

Implementing Mechanisms--Hardware Overview

According to one embodiment, the techniques described herein are implemented by one or more special-purpose computing devices. The special-purpose computing devices may be hard-wired to perform the techniques, or may include digital electronic devices such as one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) that are persistently programmed to perform the techniques, or may include one or more general purpose hardware processors programmed to perform the techniques pursuant to program instructions in firmware, memory, other storage, or a combination. Such special-purpose computing devices may also combine custom hard-wired logic, ASICs, or FPGAs with custom programming to accomplish the techniques. The special-purpose computing devices may be desktop computer systems, portable computer systems, handheld devices, networking devices or any other device that incorporates hard-wired and/or program logic to implement the techniques.

For example, FIG. 7 is a block diagram that illustrates a computer system 700 upon which an embodiment of the invention may be implemented. Computer system 700 includes a bus 702 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a hardware processor 704 coupled with bus 702 for processing information. Hardware processor 704 may be, for example, a general purpose microprocessor.

Computer system 700 also includes a main memory 706, such as a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, coupled to bus 702 for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor 704. Main memory 706 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor 704. Such instructions, when stored in storage media accessible to processor 704, render computer system 700 into a special-purpose machine that is customized to perform the operations specified in the instructions.

Computer system 700 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 708 or other static storage device coupled to bus 702 for storing static information and instructions for processor 704. A storage device 710, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus 702 for storing information and instructions.

Computer system 700 may be coupled via bus 702 to a display 712, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), for displaying 40 information to a computer user. An input device 714, including alphanumeric and other keys, is coupled to bus 702 for communicating information and command selections to processor 704. Another type of user input device is cursor control 716, such as a mouse, a trackball, or cursor direction keys for communicating direction information and command selections to processor 704 and for controlling cursor movement on display 712. This input device typically has two degrees of freedom in two axes, a first axis (e.g., x) and a second axis (e.g., y), that allows the device to specify positions in a plane.

Computer system 700 may implement the techniques described herein using customized hard-wired logic, one or more ASICs or FPGAs, firmware and/or program logic which in combination with the computer system causes or programs computer system 700 to be a special-purpose machine. According to one embodiment, the techniques herein are performed by computer system 700 in response to processor 704 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions contained in main memory 706. Such instructions may be read into main memory 706 from another storage medium, such as storage device 710. Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in main memory 706 causes processor 704 to perform the process steps described herein. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions.

The term "non-transitory media" as used herein refers to any media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operation in a specific fashion. Such non-transitory media may comprise non-volatile media and/or volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as storage device 710. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as main memory 706. Common forms of non-transitory media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, hard disk, solid state drive, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic data storage medium, a CD-ROM, any other optical data storage medium, any physical medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, NVRAM, any other memory chip or cartridge.

Non-transitory media is distinct from but may be used in conjunction with transmission media. Transmission media participates in transferring information between non-transitory media. For example, transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise bus 702. Transmission media can also take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio-wave and infra-red data communications.

Various forms of media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to processor 704 for execution. For example, the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk or solid state drive of a remote computer. The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over a telephone line using a modem. A modem local to computer system 700 can receive the data on the telephone line and use an infra-red transmitter to convert the data to an infra-red signal. An infra-red detector can receive the data carried in the infra-red signal and appropriate circuitry can place the data on bus 702. Bus 702 carries the data to main memory 706, from which processor 704 retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by main memory 706 may optionally be stored on storage device 710 either before or after execution by processor 704.

Computer system 700 also includes a communication interface 718 coupled to bus 702. Communication interface 718 provides a two-way data communication coupling to a network link 720 that is connected to a local network 722. For example, communication interface 718 may be an integrated services digital network (ISDN) card, cable modem, satellite modem, or a modem to provide a data communication connection to a corresponding type of telephone line. As another example, communication interface 718 may be a local area network (LAN) card to provide a data communication connection to a compatible LAN. Wireless links may also be implemented. In any such implementation, communication interface 718 sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals that carry digital data streams representing various types of information.

Network link 720 typically provides data communication through one or more networks to other data devices. For example, network link 720 may provide a connection through local network 722 to a host computer 724 or to data equipment operated by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) 726. ISP 726 in turn provides data communication services through the world wide packet data communication network now commonly referred to as the "Internet" 728. Local network 722 and Internet 728 both use electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals that carry digital data streams. The signals through the various networks and the signals on network link 720 and through communication interface 718, which carry the digital data to and from computer system 700, are example forms of transmission media.

Computer system 700 can send messages and receive data, including program code, through the network(s), network link 720 and communication interface 718. In the Internet example, a server 730 might transmit a requested code for an application program through Internet 728, ISP 726, local network 722 and communication interface 718.

The received code may be executed by processor 704 as it is received, and/or stored in storage device 710, or other non-volatile storage for later execution.

In the foregoing specification, embodiments of the invention have been described with reference to numerous specific details that may vary from implementation to implementation. Thus, the sole and exclusive indicator of what is the invention, and is intended by the applicants to be the invention, is the set of claims that issue from this application, in the specific form in which such claims issue, including any subsequent correction. Any definitions expressly set forth herein for terms contained in such claims shall govern the meaning of such terms as used in the claims. Hence, no limitation, element, property, feature, advantage or attribute that is not expressly recited in a claim should limit the scope of such claim in any way. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.

* * * * *

References


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed