Failure transparency in distributed transactions: does it guarantee all-or-nothing outcomes (either all actions commit or none do)?

Introduction / Context:
Distributed systems aim to hide failures from applications. In the database world, failure transparency ties closely to atomic commit: either all participants commit or all abort.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Distributed transactions may involve multiple resource managers.
• Two-phase commit (2PC) or a similar protocol coordinates commit.
• Sites and networks can fail independently.

Concept / Approach:
Failure transparency means applications should not observe partial effects of a transaction. Atomicity across sites is ensured via commit protocols and logging. If any participant cannot commit, the coordinator orders a rollback everywhere, preserving the all-or-nothing property.

Step-by-Step Solution:
A client initiates a distributed transaction.Participants enter prepare phase and promise to commit or abort atomically.On success, the coordinator issues commit to all; on failure, issues abort to all.Clients observe either complete success or complete rollback.

Verification / Alternative check:
Textbook ACID semantics define atomicity explicitly; distributed commit protocols extend this across sites.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Partial commits violate atomicity; limiting to one site or read-only cases misunderstands the concept.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring heuristic outcomes in rare failure modes; not accounting for blocking issues in 2PC during coordinator failures.

Final Answer:
Applies — failure transparency masks faults so a transaction is atomic across sites