Silver: a Scalable, Distributed, Multi-Versioning, Always Growing (Ag) File System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Allgemeines Abkürzungsverzeichnis
Allgemeines Abkürzungsverzeichnis L. -
CERIAS Tech Report 2017-5 Deceptive Memory Systems by Christopher N
CERIAS Tech Report 2017-5 Deceptive Memory Systems by Christopher N. Gutierrez Center for Education and Research Information Assurance and Security Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2086 DECEPTIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS ADissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Christopher N. Gutierrez In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2017 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL Dr. Eugene H. Spa↵ord, Co-Chair Department of Computer Science Dr. Saurabh Bagchi, Co-Chair Department of Computer Science Dr. Dongyan Xu Department of Computer Science Dr. Mathias Payer Department of Computer Science Approved by: Dr. Voicu Popescu by Dr. William J. Gorman Head of the Graduate Program iii This work is dedicated to my wife, Gina. Thank you for all of your love and support. The moon awaits us. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iwould liketothank ProfessorsEugeneSpa↵ord and SaurabhBagchi for their guidance, support, and advice throughout my time at Purdue. Both have been instru mental in my development as a computer scientist, and I am forever grateful. I would also like to thank the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security (CERIAS) for fostering a multidisciplinary security culture in which I had the privilege to be part of. Special thanks to Adam Hammer and Ronald Cas tongia for their technical support and Thomas Yurek for his programming assistance for the experimental evaluation. I am grateful for the valuable feedback provided by the members of my thesis committee, Professor Dongyen Xu, and Professor Math ias Payer. -
(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,965,180 B2 Knight Et Al
USOO89651 80B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,965,180 B2 Knight et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Feb. 24, 2015 (54) SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR 21/4884 (2013.01); H04N 2 1/84 (2013.01); CONVERTING INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA H04L 65/602 (2013.01); G1 I B2220/2562 CONTENT AUTHORED FOR DISTRIBUTION (2013.01) VIAA PHYSICAL MEDIUM FOR USPC .......................................................... 386/282 ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION (58) Field of Classification Search USPC ......... 386/278, 279, 280, 281, 282,283, 284, (75) Inventors: Anthony David Knight, San Jose, CA 386/285, 290 (US); Ian Michael Lewis, Oxfordshire See application file for complete search history. (GB); Andrew Maurice Devitt, London (GB) (56) References Cited (73) Assignee: Rovi Guides, Inc., Santa Clara, CA (US) U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 4,838,843. A 6, 1989 Westhoff (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 5,313,881 A 5/1994 Morgan patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 66 days. (Continued) This patent is Subject to a terminal dis FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS claimer. EP O865.362 B1 T 2003 (21) Appl. No.: 13/182,376 JP 2001344828 12/2001 (Continued) (22) Filed: Jul. 13, 2011 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (65) Prior Publication Data Apple Inc., "iTunes Extra iTunes LP Development: Template How US 2012/OO 14674 A1 Jan. 19, 2012 To v1.1”. Jan. 26, 2010, 58 pgs. (Continued) Related U.S. Application Data Primary Examiner — Tat Chio (60) Provisional application No. 61/364,001, filed on Jul. (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Ropes & Gray LLP 13, 2010. (57) ABSTRACT (51) Int. -
Ext4 File System and Crash Consistency
1 Ext4 file system and crash consistency Changwoo Min 2 Summary of last lectures • Tools: building, exploring, and debugging Linux kernel • Core kernel infrastructure • Process management & scheduling • Interrupt & interrupt handler • Kernel synchronization • Memory management • Virtual file system • Page cache and page fault 3 Today: ext4 file system and crash consistency • File system in Linux kernel • Design considerations of a file system • History of file system • On-disk structure of Ext4 • File operations • Crash consistency 4 File system in Linux kernel User space application (ex: cp) User-space Syscalls: open, read, write, etc. Kernel-space VFS: Virtual File System Filesystems ext4 FAT32 JFFS2 Block layer Hardware Embedded Hard disk USB drive flash 5 What is a file system fundamentally? int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int fd; char buffer[4096]; struct stat_buf; DIR *dir; struct dirent *entry; /* 1. Path name -> inode mapping */ fd = open("/home/lkp/hello.c" , O_RDONLY); /* 2. File offset -> disk block address mapping */ pread(fd, buffer, sizeof(buffer), 0); /* 3. File meta data operation */ fstat(fd, &stat_buf); printf("file size = %d\n", stat_buf.st_size); /* 4. Directory operation */ dir = opendir("/home"); entry = readdir(dir); printf("dir = %s\n", entry->d_name); return 0; } 6 Why do we care EXT4 file system? • Most widely-deployed file system • Default file system of major Linux distributions • File system used in Google data center • Default file system of Android kernel • Follows the traditional file system design 7 History of file system design 8 UFS (Unix File System) • The original UNIX file system • Design by Dennis Ritche and Ken Thompson (1974) • The first Linux file system (ext) and Minix FS has a similar layout 9 UFS (Unix File System) • Performance problem of UFS (and the first Linux file system) • Especially, long seek time between an inode and data block 10 FFS (Fast File System) • The file system of BSD UNIX • Designed by Marshall Kirk McKusick, et al. -
Comptia A+ Acronym List Core 1 (220-1001) and Core 2 (220-1002)
CompTIA A+ Acronym List Core 1 (220-1001) and Core 2 (220-1002) AC: Alternating Current ACL: Access Control List ACPI: Advanced Configuration Power Interface ADF: Automatic Document Feeder ADSL: Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line AES: Advanced Encryption Standard AHCI: Advanced Host Controller Interface AP: Access Point APIPA: Automatic Private Internet Protocol Addressing APM: Advanced Power Management ARP: Address Resolution Protocol ASR: Automated System Recovery ATA: Advanced Technology Attachment ATAPI: Advanced Technology Attachment Packet Interface ATM: Asynchronous Transfer Mode ATX: Advanced Technology Extended AUP: Acceptable Use Policy A/V: Audio Video BD-R: Blu-ray Disc Recordable BIOS: Basic Input/Output System BD-RE: Blu-ray Disc Rewritable BNC: Bayonet-Neill-Concelman BSOD: Blue Screen of Death 1 BYOD: Bring Your Own Device CAD: Computer-Aided Design CAPTCHA: Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart CD: Compact Disc CD-ROM: Compact Disc-Read-Only Memory CD-RW: Compact Disc-Rewritable CDFS: Compact Disc File System CERT: Computer Emergency Response Team CFS: Central File System, Common File System, or Command File System CGA: Computer Graphics and Applications CIDR: Classless Inter-Domain Routing CIFS: Common Internet File System CMOS: Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor CNR: Communications and Networking Riser COMx: Communication port (x = port number) CPU: Central Processing Unit CRT: Cathode-Ray Tube DaaS: Data as a Service DAC: Discretionary Access Control DB-25: Serial Communications -
CS 152: Computer Systems Architecture Storage Technologies
CS 152: Computer Systems Architecture Storage Technologies Sang-Woo Jun Winter 2019 Storage Used To be a Secondary Concern Typically, storage was not a first order citizen of a computer system o As alluded to by its name “secondary storage” o Its job was to load programs and data to memory, and disappear o Most applications only worked with CPU and system memory (DRAM) o Extreme applications like DBMSs were the exception Because conventional secondary storage was very slow o Things are changing! Some (Pre)History Magnetic core memory Rope memory (ROM) 1960’s Drum memory 1950~1970s 72 KiB per cubic foot! 100s of KiB (1024 bits in photo) Hand-woven to program the 1950’s Apollo guidance computer Photos from Wikipedia Some (More Recent) History Floppy disk drives 1970’s~2000’s 100 KiBs to 1.44 MiB Hard disk drives 1950’s to present MBs to TBs Photos from Wikipedia Some (Current) History Solid State Drives Non-Volatile Memory 2000’s to present 2010’s to present GB to TBs GBs Hard Disk Drives Dominant storage medium for the longest time o Still the largest capacity share Data organized into multiple magnetic platters o Mechanical head needs to move to where data is, to read it o Good sequential access, terrible random access • 100s of MB/s sequential, maybe 1 MB/s 4 KB random o Time for the head to move to the right location (“seek time”) may be ms long • 1000,000s of cycles! Typically “ATA” (Including IDE and EIDE), and later “SATA” interfaces o Connected via “South bridge” chipset Ding Yuan, “Operating Systems ECE344 Lecture 11: File -
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. -
Data Interchange on Parallel Write/Read Disk Format for 5 Optical Disks
ECMA-405 1st Edition / December 2013 Data Interchange on Parallel Write/Read Disk Format for 5 Optical Disks Reference number ECMA-123:2009 © Ecma International 2009 COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT © Ecma International 2013 Contents Page 1 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Conformance ......................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Normative references ............................................................................................................................ 1 4 Terms and definitions ........................................................................................................................... 1 5 Conventions and notations .................................................................................................................. 4 6 Recording area for non-parity disk type ............................................................................................. 4 6.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 4 6.2 System management area .................................................................................................................... 4 6.2.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. -
Standardizing Information and Communication Systems
ECMA/TC39/97/7 ECMA/GA/97/8 Standardizing Information and Communication Systems Minutes of the 2nd meeting of TC39 held in Cupertino, USA, on 14th - 15th January 1997 Chairman: Mr. G. Robinson (Sun) Secretary: Mr. J. van den Beld (SG ECMA) Attending: Ms. Brennan (Apple), Mr. Coha (HP), Ms. Converse (Netscape), Mr. Espinosa (Apple), Mr. Gibbons (HP), Mr. Katzenberger (Microsoft), Mr. Ksar (HP), Mr. Lenkov (HP), Mr. Matzke (Apple), Ms. Nguyen (Netscape), Mr. Saraiya (Sun), Mr. Smith (Digital), Mr. Urquhart (Sun), Mr. Willingmyre (Microsoft), Mr. Wiltamuth (Microsoft) Guests: Mr. Gardner (Borland), Mr. Palay (Silicon Graphics), Mr. Seniak (Ilog), Mr. Solton (Borland), Mr. Turyn (Nombas) Excused: Mr. Cargill, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Mathis, Mr. Reardon, Mr. Singer 1 Opening and adoption of the agenda (96/7) Mr. Robinson, Chairman of TC39, opened the meeting and welcomed all attendants, in particular those attending for the first time. A roll call was held. The agenda was approved, with some detailing proposed by the Chairman. 2 Approval of the minutes of the 1st meeting (96/4) The minutes were approved without modifications. 3 Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere None. 4 Documents 97/2: A list of names proposed to replace ECMAScript, prepared by Mr. Wiltamuth, and also distributed via the TC39 reflector on 13th January 1997. 97/3: A proposal of lists of objects to be included into clauses 11 to 13 of the draft standard, prepared by Mr. Wiltamuth (paper document only). 97/4: Comments on the draft standard, version 0.2, prepared byMr. Noorda (paper document only). 5 Reports 5.1 ECMA General Assembly No. -
State-Of-The-Art Garbage Collection Policies for NILFS2
State-of-the-art Garbage Collection Policies for NILFS2 DIPLOMARBEIT zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Diplom-Ingenieur im Rahmen des Studiums Software Engineering/Internet Computing eingereicht von Andreas Rohner, Bsc Matrikelnummer 0502196 an der Fakultät für Informatik der Technischen Universität Wien Betreuung: Ao.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. M. Anton Ertl Wien, 23. Jänner 2018 Andreas Rohner M. Anton Ertl Technische Universität Wien A-1040 Wien Karlsplatz 13 Tel. +43-1-58801-0 www.tuwien.ac.at State-of-the-art Garbage Collection Policies for NILFS2 DIPLOMA THESIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Diplom-Ingenieur in Software Engineering/Internet Computing by Andreas Rohner, Bsc Registration Number 0502196 to the Faculty of Informatics at the TU Wien Advisor: Ao.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. M. Anton Ertl Vienna, 23rd January, 2018 Andreas Rohner M. Anton Ertl Technische Universität Wien A-1040 Wien Karlsplatz 13 Tel. +43-1-58801-0 www.tuwien.ac.at Erklärung zur Verfassung der Arbeit Andreas Rohner, Bsc Grundsteingasse 43/22 Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich diese Arbeit selbständig verfasst habe, dass ich die verwen- deten Quellen und Hilfsmittel vollständig angegeben habe und dass ich die Stellen der Arbeit – einschließlich Tabellen, Karten und Abbildungen –, die anderen Werken oder dem Internet im Wortlaut oder dem Sinn nach entnommen sind, auf jeden Fall unter Angabe der Quelle als Entlehnung kenntlich gemacht habe. Wien, 23. Jänner 2018 Andreas Rohner v Danksagung Ich danke meinem Betreuer Ao.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. M. Anton Ertl für seine Geduld und Unterstützung. Außerdem schulde ich Ryusuke Konishi, dem Maintainer des NILFS2-Subsystems im Linux-Kernel, Dank für die Durchsicht meiner Patches und die vielen wertvollen Verbesserungsvorschläge. -
The Ongoing Evolution of Ext4 File System
The Ongoing Evolution of Ext4 file system New features and Performance Enhancements Red Hat Luk´aˇsCzerner October 24, 2011 Copyright © 2011 Luk´aˇsCzerner, Red Hat. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the COPYING file. Part I Statistics Agenda 1 Who works on Ext4? 2 Lines of code Who works on Ext4? Agenda 1 Who works on Ext4? 2 Lines of code Who works on Ext4? Last year of Ext4 development 250 non merge changes from 72 developers 9 developers has at least 10 commits 8512 lines of code inserted 5675 lined of code deleted Who works on Ext4? Comparison with other local file systems File system Number of commits Developers Developers* Ext4 250 72 9 Ext3 95 34 2 Xfs 294 34 4 Btrfs 506 60 11 550 Number of commits 500 Developers 450 400 350 300 250 Duration [s] 200 150 100 50 0 EXT3 EXT4 XFS BTRFS File system Lines of code Agenda 1 Who works on Ext4? 2 Lines of code Lines of code Development of the number of lines 80000 Ext3 Xfs Ext4 70000 Btrfs 60000 50000 40000 Lines of code 30000 20000 10000 01/01/05 01/01/06 01/01/07 01/01/08 01/01/09 01/01/10 01/01/11 01/01/12 Part II What's new in Ext4? Agenda 3 Faster file system creation 4 Discard support 5 Support for file systems beyond 16TB 6 Punch hole support 7 Scalability improvements 8 Clustered allocation Faster file system creation -
NOVA: the Fastest File System for Nvdimms
NOVA: The Fastest File System for NVDIMMs Steven Swanson, UC San Diego XFS F2FS NILFS EXT4 BTRFS © 2017 SNIA Persistent Memory Summit. All Rights Reserved. Disk-based file systems are inadequate for NVMM Disk-based file systems cannot 1-Sector 1-Block N-Block 1-Sector 1-Block N-Block Atomicity overwrit overwrit overwrit append append append exploit NVMM performance e e e Ext4 ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ wb Ext4 ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ Performance optimization Order Ext4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ compromises consistency on Dataj system failure [1] Btrfs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ xfs ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ Reiserfs ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ [1] Pillai et al, All File Systems Are Not Created Equal: On the Complexity of Crafting Crash-Consistent Applications, OSDI '14. © 2017 SNIA Persistent Memory Summit. All Rights Reserved. BPFS SCMFS PMFS Aerie EXT4-DAX XFS-DAX NOVA M1FS © 2017 SNIA Persistent Memory Summit. All Rights Reserved. Previous Prototype NVMM file systems are not strongly consistent DAX does not provide data ATomic Atomicity Metadata Data Snapshot atomicity guarantee Mmap [1] So programming is more BPFS ✓ ✓ [2] ✗ ✗ difficult PMFS ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ Ext4-DAX ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ Xfs-DAX ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ SCMFS ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Aerie ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ © 2017 SNIA Persistent Memory Summit. All Rights Reserved. Ext4-DAX and xfs-DAX shortcomings No data atomicity support Single journal shared by all the transactions (JBD2- based) Poor performance Development teams are (rightly) “disk first”. © 2017 SNIA Persistent Memory Summit. All Rights Reserved. NOVA provides strong atomicity guarantees 1-Sector 1-Sector 1-Block 1-Block N-Block N-Block Atomicity Atomicity Metadata Data Mmap overwrite append overwrite append overwrite append Ext4 ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ BPFS ✓ ✓ ✗ wb Ext4 ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ PMFS ✓ ✗ ✗ Order Ext4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ Ext4-DAX ✓ ✗ ✗ Dataj Btrfs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ Xfs-DAX ✓ ✗ ✗ xfs ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ SCMFS ✗ ✗ ✗ Reiserfs ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ Aerie ✓ ✗ ✗ © 2017 SNIA Persistent Memory Summit. All Rights Reserved.