DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture 24: Filesystem Implementations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture 24: Filesystem Implementations Lecture 24: Filesystem Implementations Fall 2018 Jason Tang Slides based upon Operating System Concept slides, http://codex.cs.yale.edu/avi/os-book/OS9/slide-dir/index.html Copyright Silberschatz, Galvin, and Gagne, 2013 "1 Topics • Allocation Methods ! • Filesystem Performance ! • Filesystem Features! • Real Filesystems "2 Contiguous Allocation • Allocation Methods: Describes how filesystem allocates disk blocks (similar to a memory allocator)! • Contiguous Allocation: Each file occupies set of contiguous blocks! • Simple implementation: only need starting location (a block number) and length (number of blocks)! • Optimal performance for HDDs: after disk head has finished reading block n, it is in correct position to read block n + 1 "3 Contiguous Allocation • Di$culty in finding space for file! • Use first fit, best fit, or worst fit algorithm, just like with memory! • Subject to external fragmentation! • How to determine number of blocks when file is created?! • Unable to handle files that grow over time! • Need for o%ine compaction "4 Extent-Based Allocation • Similar to contiguous allocation, in that contiguous blocks reserved for file! • When not enough reserved blocks, filesystem allocates another extent! • List of extents stored in file’s metadata (inode)! • A file consists of zero or more extents! • Internal fragmentation if extents too large! • External fragmentation if a file has many extents! • Used in many modern filesystems (including Ext4, HFS+, and NTFS) "5 Linked Allocation • Each file is a linked list of blocks; disk blocks are scattered throughout disk! • Each block contains pointer to next block, or NULL to indicate end of file! • Directory stores pointer to first and last blocks of each file! • No random access; must traverse list sequentially! • Need to defragment disk for optimal HDD performance! • Example: If each block is 512 bytes and a pointer to next block requires 4 bytes, then each block may only hold 508 bytes (0.78% overhead) "6 Linked Allocation "7 Linked Allocation • Cluster allocation: Similar to linked allocation, but allocation in multiples of blocks (clusters) instead of individual blocks! • Improves performance, but increases internal fragmentation! • Reliability problem: if a block/cluster is written to a bad sector, the remainder of file is lost "8 File Allocation Table (FAT) • Drawback to linked allocation is that seeking to a specific location requires many I/O operations! • FAT filesystem reserves space at beginning of disk that contains a block table! • Each entry in table corresponds to a block on disk! • Each entry contains value of next block, or special end-of-file value, or 0 to indicate an unused block! • Kernel caches entire block table for faster access "9 Allocation Comparison Linked Allocation File Allocation Table "10 Indexed Allocation • Each file has its own index block! • Contains pointers to actual data blocks, similar to page table! • Can be multilevel, like a hierarchical page table! • Maximum file size based upon number of pointers possible! • More overhead, due to additional index block metadata "11 Indexed Allocation "12 Efficiency and Performance • E$ciency depends on:! • Disk allocation and directory algorithms! • Information kept in file metadata! • Performance depends on:! • Keeping file data and metadata physically close together (for HDDs)! • Bu&er cache: main memory reserved to cache frequently used blocks "13 Filesystem Optimizations • Read-ahead: when reading data block n, often block n+1 will be needed soon! • A process that is reading a file will need those bytes soon, but a process that is writing to a file will usually not read back those bytes! • Synchronous writes: bytes committed to disk in same order that kernel receives request! • Asynchronous writes: kernel caches write requests, and will commit those changes whenever disk is idle (more common)! • Coherency: needed if one process is writing and a di&erent process is reading same file "14 Traditional Caching • Devices use DMA to copy file data into a page cache! • OS bu&ered I/O transactions into a bu&er cache! • Data represented twice, which could cause inconsistency "15 Unified Buffer Cache • Uses same memory cache for process I/O as well as hardware DMA! • Solves coherency problem; implemented by Linux and other modern OSes! • Like any other memory cache, requires algorithm to choose when to evict entries within "16 Journaling • Consistency check: when mounting filesystem, compare data in directory structure with data blocks in disk, and try to fix inconsistencies! • Can be slow and sometimes fails! • Log structured (or journaled) file system records each metadata update to filesystem as a transaction! • All transactions written to a log! • A transaction is considered committed after it is written to log "17 Journaling • Log transactions are asynchronously written to filesystem structures! • A transaction is removed from log after filesystem structures are modified! • If filesystem crashes (e.g., power outage), all remaining transactions in the log must still be performed! • A filesystem may have journal for all data changes (slower, more reliable), or only for metadata (so-called writeback mode, which is faster but less reliable) "18 Metadata Journaling Example 1. Process attempts to append data to file 2. OS writes to journal the file’s new size 3. OS allocates block for new data 4. OS writes to journal the allocated location 5. OS writes data to allocated block 6. OS clears journal • If step 1 or step 2 crashes, then disk remains unchanged (no inconsistency)! • If step 3 crashes, OS will replay starting at step 3 (but write garbage to file)! • If step 4 or 5 crashes, OS will replay starting at step 4 (but write garbage to file)! • If step 6 crashes, OS will have an out of date journal, but file contents are correct "19 Snapshots • Some filesystems can automatically make backups of files prior to modifications! • When a change to metadata or to block n in file, old data copied to snapshot before filesystem is updated! • Similar to copy-on-write! • Metadata updated to indicate where previous data exists! • Filesystems limit amount of snapshots (limit to percent of disk, or automatically remove snapshots older than certain date) "20 Checksums • Mathematical algorithm used to detect errors within a file! • Also known as a hash! • Example: count the number of 1 bits in a file, and store a 1 if that count is odd, 0 if even (so-called parity bit)! • When filesystem is mounted, for each file, check that sum of all 1 bits in file plus parity bit is an even number; if not even then file is corrupted! • Many fancier checksums can even detect where error occurred and can recover from it (so-called error-correcting codes) "21 FAT32 • Default filesystem for MS-DOS, Windows (prior to Windows XP), and still used on most USB flash drives! • Uses FAT, resulting in good performance for slower CPUs and small storage overhead! • Maximum size of a single file is 232 - 1 bytes! • Each FAT entry refers to one of 232 sectors; if each sector is 512 bytes, maximum disk size is 2 TiB! • No journaling, snapshots, checksums, nor ACLs "22 EXT4 • Default filesystem for many Linux distributions! • Uses extent allocation! • A single inode can hold up to 4 extents, each being up to 128 MiB! • When a file requires more extents, its inode contains a pointer to a HTree! • Supports journaling and ACLs! • Journal is checksummed for improved reliability "23 ZFS • Default filesystem for Solaris; can also be used in Linux! • Every block of data is checksummed; checksum stored in separate area (not with data block)! • Single ZFS filesystem may span across multiple physical devices! • Maximum file size is 264 bytes! • Supports journaling, snapshot, and ACLs "24 UBIFS • Designed for SSDs without integrated wear controller! • Tolerates frequent power outages, unreliable flash chips! • Traditional hard disk-based filesystems store metadata (FAT, journal, etc) in same physical place! • UBIFS employs wear-leveling, to prevent reaching erase count! • Can always change a one bit to zero, but not vice versa without an erase! • Uses write-back bu&ers, to reduce I/O and also to reduce erasing "25 UBIFS • Checksums all data blocks, including superblocks, to detect faulty flash sectors ! • Whereas on EXT4, the journal is at same location, UBIFS’s journal wanders! • When journal is full, kernel selects a new block and writes the new block’s address to end of current journal! • Background kernel thread commits changes to flash:! • When journal is 80% full! • Or when internal timer expires, flushes write-back bu&ers "26.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Development of a Verified Flash File System ⋆
    Development of a Verified Flash File System ? Gerhard Schellhorn, Gidon Ernst, J¨orgPf¨ahler,Dominik Haneberg, and Wolfgang Reif Institute for Software & Systems Engineering University of Augsburg, Germany fschellhorn,ernst,joerg.pfaehler,haneberg,reifg @informatik.uni-augsburg.de Abstract. This paper gives an overview over the development of a for- mally verified file system for flash memory. We describe our approach that is based on Abstract State Machines and incremental modular re- finement. Some of the important intermediate levels and the features they introduce are given. We report on the verification challenges addressed so far, and point to open problems and future work. We furthermore draw preliminary conclusions on the methodology and the required tool support. 1 Introduction Flaws in the design and implementation of file systems already lead to serious problems in mission-critical systems. A prominent example is the Mars Explo- ration Rover Spirit [34] that got stuck in a reset cycle. In 2013, the Mars Rover Curiosity also had a bug in its file system implementation, that triggered an au- tomatic switch to safe mode. The first incident prompted a proposal to formally verify a file system for flash memory [24,18] as a pilot project for Hoare's Grand Challenge [22]. We are developing a verified flash file system (FFS). This paper reports on our progress and discusses some of the aspects of the project. We describe parts of the design, the formal models, and proofs, pointing out challenges and solutions. The main characteristic of flash memory that guides the design is that data cannot be overwritten in place, instead space can only be reused by erasing whole blocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Membrane: Operating System Support for Restartable File Systems Swaminathan Sundararaman, Sriram Subramanian, Abhishek Rajimwale, Andrea C
    Membrane: Operating System Support for Restartable File Systems Swaminathan Sundararaman, Sriram Subramanian, Abhishek Rajimwale, Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau, Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau, Michael M. Swift Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison Abstract and most complex code bases in the kernel. Further, We introduce Membrane, a set of changes to the oper- file systems are still under active development, and new ating system to support restartable file systems. Mem- ones are introduced quite frequently. For example, Linux brane allows an operating system to tolerate a broad has many established file systems, including ext2 [34], class of file system failures and does so while remain- ext3 [35], reiserfs [27], and still there is great interest in ing transparent to running applications; upon failure, the next-generation file systems such as Linux ext4 and btrfs. file system restarts, its state is restored, and pending ap- Thus, file systems are large, complex, and under develop- plication requests are serviced as if no failure had oc- ment, the perfect storm for numerous bugs to arise. curred. Membrane provides transparent recovery through Because of the likely presence of flaws in their imple- a lightweight logging and checkpoint infrastructure, and mentation, it is critical to consider how to recover from includes novel techniques to improve performance and file system crashes as well. Unfortunately, we cannot di- correctness of its fault-anticipation and recovery machin- rectly apply previous work from the device-driver litera- ery. We tested Membrane with ext2, ext3, and VFAT. ture to improving file-system fault recovery. File systems, Through experimentation, we show that Membrane in- unlike device drivers, are extremely stateful, as they man- duces little performance overhead and can tolerate a wide age vast amounts of both in-memory and persistent data; range of file system crashes.
    [Show full text]
  • Elinos Product Overview
    SYSGO Product Overview ELinOS 7 Industrial Grade Linux ELinOS is a SYSGO Linux distribution to help developers save time and effort by focusing on their application. Our Industrial Grade Linux with user-friendly IDE goes along with the best selection of software packages to meet our cog linux Qt LOCK customers needs, and with the comfort of world-class technical support. ELinOS now includes Docker support Feature LTS Qt Open SSH Configurator Kernel embedded Open VPN in order to isolate applications running on the same system. laptop Q Bug Shield-Virus Docker Eclipse-based QEMU-based Application Integrated Docker IDE HW Emulators Debugging Firewall Support ELINOS FEATURES MANAGING EMBEDDED LINUX VERSATILITY • Industrial Grade Creating an Embedded Linux based system is like solving a puzzle and putting • Eclipse-based IDE for embedded the right pieces together. This requires a deep knowledge of Linux’s versatility Systems (CODEO) and takes time for the selection of components, development of Board Support • Multiple Linux kernel versions Packages and drivers, and testing of the whole system – not only for newcomers. incl. Kernel 4.19 LTS with real-time enhancements With ELinOS, SYSGO offers an ‘out-of-the-box’ experience which allows to focus • Quick and easy target on the development of competitive applications itself. ELinOS incorporates the system configuration appropriate tools, such as a feature configurator to help you build the system and • Hardware Emulation (QEMU) boost your project success, including a graphical configuration front-end with a • Extensive file system support built-in integrity validation. • Application debugging • Target analysis APPLICATION & CONFIGURATION ENVIRONMENT • Runs out-of-the-box on PikeOS • Validated and tested for In addition to standard tools, remote debugging, target system monitoring and PowerPC, x86, ARM timing behaviour analyses are essential for application development.
    [Show full text]
  • Filesystem Considerations for Embedded Devices ELC2015 03/25/15
    Filesystem considerations for embedded devices ELC2015 03/25/15 Tristan Lelong Senior embedded software engineer Filesystem considerations ABSTRACT The goal of this presentation is to answer a question asked by several customers: which filesystem should you use within your embedded design’s eMMC/SDCard? These storage devices use a standard block interface, compatible with traditional filesystems, but constraints are not those of desktop PC environments. EXT2/3/4, BTRFS, F2FS are the first of many solutions which come to mind, but how do they all compare? Typical queries include performance, longevity, tools availability, support, and power loss robustness. This presentation will not dive into implementation details but will instead summarize provided answers with the help of various figures and meaningful test results. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Block devices 3. Available filesystems 4. Performances 5. Tools 6. Reliability 7. Conclusion Filesystem considerations ABOUT THE AUTHOR • Tristan Lelong • Embedded software engineer @ Adeneo Embedded • French, living in the Pacific northwest • Embedded software, free software, and Linux kernel enthusiast. 4 Introduction Filesystem considerations Introduction INTRODUCTION More and more embedded designs rely on smart memory chips rather than bare NAND or NOR. This presentation will start by describing: • Some context to help understand the differences between NAND and MMC • Some typical requirements found in embedded devices designs • Potential filesystems to use on MMC devices 6 Filesystem considerations Introduction INTRODUCTION Focus will then move to block filesystems. How they are supported, what feature do they advertise. To help understand how they compare, we will present some benchmarks and comparisons regarding: • Tools • Reliability • Performances 7 Block devices Filesystem considerations Block devices MMC, EMMC, SD CARD Vocabulary: • MMC: MultiMediaCard is a memory card unveiled in 1997 by SanDisk and Siemens based on NAND flash memory.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Introduction to the Design of UBIFS Document Version 0.1 by Adrian Hunter 27.3.2008
    A Brief Introduction to the Design of UBIFS Document version 0.1 by Adrian Hunter 27.3.2008 A file system developed for flash memory requires out-of-place updates . This is because flash memory must be erased before it can be written to, and it can typically only be written once before needing to be erased again. If eraseblocks were small and could be erased quickly, then they could be treated the same as disk sectors, however that is not the case. To read an entire eraseblock, erase it, and write back updated data typically takes 100 times longer than simply writing the updated data to a different eraseblock that has already been erased. In other words, for small updates, in-place updates can take 100 times longer than out-of-place updates. Out-of-place updating requires garbage collection. As data is updated out-of-place, eraseblocks begin to contain a mixture of valid data and data which has become obsolete because it has been updated some place else. Eventually, the file system will run out of empty eraseblocks, so that every single eraseblock contains a mixture of valid data and obsolete data. In order to write new data somewhere, one of the eraseblocks must be emptied so that it can be erased and reused. The process of identifying an eraseblock with a lot of obsolete data, and moving the valid data to another eraseblock, is called garbage collection. Garbage collection suggests the benefits of node-structure. In order to garbage collect an eraseblock, a file system must be able to identify the data that is stored there.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Raw Flash Memory I/O Requests on Embedded Linux
    Flashmon V2: Monitoring Raw NAND Flash Memory I/O Requests on Embedded Linux Pierre Olivier Jalil Boukhobza Eric Senn Univ. Europeenne de Bretagne Univ. Europeenne de Bretagne Univ. Europeenne de Bretagne Univ. Bretagne Occidentale, Univ. Bretagne Occidentale, Univ. Bretagne Sud, UMR6285, Lab-STICC, UMR6285, Lab-STICC, UMR6285, Lab-STICC, F29200 Brest, France, F29200 Brest, France, F56100 Lorient, France [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT management mechanisms. One of these mechanisms is This paper presents Flashmon version 2, a tool for monitoring implemented by the Operating System (OS) in the form of embedded Linux NAND flash memory I/O requests. It is designed dedicated Flash File Systems (FFS). That solution is adopted in for embedded boards based devices containing raw flash chips. devices using raw flash chips on embedded boards, such as Flashmon is a kernel module and stands for "flash monitor". It smartphones, tablet PCs, set-top boxes, etc. Linux is a major traces flash I/O by placing kernel probes at the NAND driver operating system in such devices, and provides a wide support for level. It allows tracing at runtime the 3 main flash operations: several NAND flash memory models. In these devices the flash page reads / writes and block erasures. Flashmon is (1) generic as chip itself does not embed any particular controller. it was successfully tested on the three most widely used flash file This paper presents Flashmon version 2, a tool for monitoring systems that are JFFS2, UBIFS and YAFFS, and several NAND embedded Linux I/O operations on NAND secondary storage.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Checking Semantic Correctness: the Case of Finding File System Bugs
    Cross-checking Semantic Correctness: The Case of Finding File System Bugs Paper #171 Abstract 1. Introduction Today, systems software is too complex to be bug-free. To System software is buggy. It is often implemented in un- find bugs in systems software, developers often rely oncode safe languages (e.g., C) for achieving better performance or checkers, like Sparse in Linux. However, the capability of directly accessing the hardware, thereby facilitating the intro- existing tools used in commodity, large-scale systems is duction of tedious bugs. At the same time, it is also complex. limited to finding only shallow bugs that tend to be introduced For example, Linux consists of 17 millions lines of pure code by the simple mistakes of programmers and require no deep and accepts around 190 commits every day. understanding of code. Unfortunately, a majority of and To help this situation, researchers often use memory-safe difficult-to-find bugs are semantic ones, which violate high- languages in the first place. For example, Singularity [32] level rules or invariants (e.g., missing a permission check). uses C# and Unikernel [40] use OCaml for their OS develop- Thus, it is difficult for code-checking tools that lack the ment. However, in practice, developers usually rely on code understanding of a programmer’s true intention, to reason checkers. For example, Linux has integrated static code anal- about semantic correctness. ysis tools (e.g., Sparse) in its build process to detect common To solve this problem, we present JUXTA, a tool that au- coding errors (e.g., if system calls validate arguments that tomatically infers high-level semantics directly from source come from userspace).
    [Show full text]
  • Sibylfs: Formal Specification and Oracle-Based Testing for POSIX and Real-World File Systems
    SibylFS: formal specification and oracle-based testing for POSIX and real-world file systems Tom Ridge1 David Sheets2 Thomas Tuerk3 Andrea Giugliano1 Anil Madhavapeddy2 Peter Sewell2 1University of Leicester 2University of Cambridge 3FireEye http://sibylfs.io/ Abstract 1. Introduction Systems depend critically on the behaviour of file systems, Problem File systems, in common with several other key but that behaviour differs in many details, both between systems components, have some well-known but challeng- implementations and between each implementation and the ing properties: POSIX (and other) prose specifications. Building robust and portable software requires understanding these details and differences, but there is currently no good way to system- • they provide behaviourally complex abstractions; atically describe, investigate, or test file system behaviour • there are many important file system implementations, across this complex multi-platform interface. each with its own internal complexities; In this paper we show how to characterise the envelope • different file systems, while broadly similar, nevertheless of allowed behaviour of file systems in a form that enables behave quite differently in some cases; and practical and highly discriminating testing. We give a math- • other system software and applications often must be ematically rigorous model of file system behaviour, SibylFS, written to be portable between file systems, and file sys- that specifies the range of allowed behaviours of a file sys- tems themselves are sometimes ported from one OS to tem for any sequence of the system calls within our scope, another, or written to support application portability. and that can be used as a test oracle to decide whether an ob- served trace is allowed by the model, both for validating the File system behaviour, and especially these variations in be- model and for testing file systems against it.
    [Show full text]
  • NAND Design-In Notice
    APPLICATION NOTE NAND Design-In Notice 1. Introduction NAND flash process migration is fast. On average, it only takes 1 ~ 2 years before the next process migration is ready to provide cost reductions for general embedded system applications, such as STB, TV, router, printer, etc. As NAND structures shrink in physical size, certain software efforts are required to maintain NAND flash data integrity and design reliability. In general, these software efforts include, but are not limited to, the use of ECC, Bad Black Management, and Partition Tables. This application note will focus on this topic and provide guidelines for NAND usage with software management. 2. Bad Block Management 2-1. Bad Block In NOR flash, memory cells are independent, but NAND memory cells are joined together to form strings of 32 or 64 cells. See Figure 2-1: Comparison of NAND and NOR Cell Structure. With this structure, a NAND memory cell may become dependent on other member cells of its string. Weak cells in a string may prevent data from being programmed into a cell, prevent cell erasure, cause cell read bit errors that exceed specifications, and so on. Every flash vendor has its own screening method to identify defective cells in a block and mark that block as BB (Bad Block) if the defective cells cannot be corrected with ECC. In general, NAND flash will not ship if the BB count exceeds 2% of the total number of blocks. Bad blocks (BB) are common in NAND flash, and they must be handled correctly by software. When a user accesses a fresh NAND device for the first time, it is important to scan all bad block markers and build a BBT (Bad Block Table) in order to prevent using any of the bad blocks listed in the BBT.
    [Show full text]
  • A File System for Large-Scale NAND Flash Memory Based Storage System
    Journal of The Korea Society of Computer and Information www.ksci.re.kr Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1-8, September 2017 https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2017.22.09.001 A File System for Large-scale NAND Flash Memory Based Storage System 1)Sunghoon Son* Abstract In this paper, we propose a file system for flash memory which remedies shortcomings of existing flash memory file systems. Besides supporting large block size, the proposed file system reduces time in initializing file system significantly by adopting logical address comprised of erase block number and bitmap for pages in the block to find a page. The file system is suitable for embedded systems with limited main memory since it has small in-memory data structures. It also provides efficient management of obsolete blocks and free blocks, which contribute to the reduction of file update time. Finally the proposed file system can easily configure the maximum file size and file system size limits, which results in portability to emerging larger flash memories. By conducting performance evaluation studies, we show that the proposed file system can contribute to the performance improvement of embedded systems. ▸Keyword: NAND Flash memory, Flash file system, Embedded system I. Introduction 최근 수년간 플래시 메모리는 용량이나 접근 속도 면에서 비 용 파일시스템의 사용은 필수적이다. 현재 YAFFS, JFFS2 등 약적인 발전을 거듭하고 있다. 현재 휴대용 디지털 기기에는 주 과 같은 플래시 메모리를 위한 몇몇 전용 파일시스템들이 개발 로 수십 GB의 NAND 플래시 메모리가 저장장치로 사용되고 되어서 사용되고 있다. 이 파일시스템들은 플래시 메모리의 특 있으며, 최신의 12 ~ 15nm 수준의 반도체 제작 공정 하에서는 성을 고려하여 개발된 것이기는 하지만, 최근 출시되고 있는 대 512GB 급의 NAND 플래시 메모리 칩이 개발된 바 있다.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Crash Hoare Logic for Certifying the FSCQ File System
    Using Crash Hoare Logic for Certifying the FSCQ File System Haogang Chen, Daniel Ziegler, Tej Chajed, Adam Chlipala, Frans Kaashoek, and Nickolai Zeldovich MIT CSAIL 1 / 27 New file systems (and bugs) are introduced over time Some bugs are serious: security exploits, data loss, etc. File systems are complex and have bugs File systems are complex (e.g., Linux ext4 is ∼60,000 lines of code) and have many bugs: 500 ext3 400 300 200 100 # patches for bugs 0 Jan'04 Jan'05 Jan'06 Jan'07 Jan'08 Jan'09 Jan'10 Jan'11 Cumulative number of patches for file-system bugs in Linux; data from [Lu et al., FAST’13] 2 / 27 Some bugs are serious: security exploits, data loss, etc. File systems are complex and have bugs File systems are complex (e.g., Linux ext4 is ∼60,000 lines of code) and have many bugs: 500 ext3 400 ext4 xfs 300 reiserfs 200 jfs btrfs 100 # patches for bugs 0 Jan'04 Jan'05 Jan'06 Jan'07 Jan'08 Jan'09 Jan'10 Jan'11 Cumulative number of patches for file-system bugs in Linux; data from [Lu et al., FAST’13] New file systems (and bugs) are introduced over time 2 / 27 File systems are complex and have bugs File systems are complex (e.g., Linux ext4 is ∼60,000 lines of code) and have many bugs: 500 ext3 400 ext4 xfs 300 reiserfs 200 jfs btrfs 100 # patches for bugs 0 Jan'04 Jan'05 Jan'06 Jan'07 Jan'08 Jan'09 Jan'10 Jan'11 Cumulative number of patches for file-system bugs in Linux; data from [Lu et al., FAST’13] New file systems (and bugs) are introduced over time Some bugs are serious: security exploits, data loss, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending the Lifetime of Flash-Based Storage Through Reducing Write Amplification from File Systems
    Extending the Lifetime of Flash-based Storage through Reducing Write Amplification from File Systems Youyou Lu Jiwu Shu∗ Weimin Zheng Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology ∗Corresponding author: [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] Abstract storage systems. However, the increased density of flash memory requires finer voltage steps inside each cell, Flash memory has gained in popularity as storage which is less tolerant to leakage and noise interference. devices for both enterprise and embedded systems As a result, the reliability and lifetime of flash memory because of its high performance, low energy and reduced have declined dramatically, producing the endurance cost. The endurance problem of flash memory, however, problem [18, 12, 17]. is still a challenge and is getting worse as storage Wear leveling and data reduction are two common density increases with the adoption of multi-level cells methods to extend the lifetime of the flash storage. With (MLC). Prior work has addressed wear leveling and wear leveling, program/erase (P/E) operations tend to be data reduction, but there is significantly less work on distributed across the flash blocks to make them wear out using the file system to improve flash lifetimes. Some evenly [11, 14]. Data reduction is used in both the flash common mechanisms in traditional file systems, such as translation layers (FTLs) and the file systems. The FTLs journaling, metadata synchronization, and page-aligned introduce deduplication and compression techniques to update, can induce extra write operations and aggravate avoid updates of redundant data [15, 33, 34].
    [Show full text]