DOCSLIB.ORG

Scalability in the XFS File System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scalability in the XFS File System The following paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the USENIX 1996 Annual Technical Conference San Diego, California, January 1996 Scalability in the XFS File System Adam Sweeney Silicon Graphics For more information about USENIX Association contact: 1. Phone: 510 528-8649 2. FAX: 510 548-5738 3. Email: [email protected] 4. WWW URL: http://www.usenix.org Scalability in the XFS File System Adam Sweeney, Doug Doucette, Wei Hu, Curtis Anderson, Mike Nishimoto, and Geoff Peck Silicon Graphics, Inc. Abstract uses an asynchronous write ahead logging scheme for In this paper we describe the architecture and design protecting complex metadata updates and allowing of a new file system, XFS, for Silicon Graphics’ IRIX fast file system recovery after a crash. We also support operating system. It is a general purpose file system very high throughput file I/O using large, parallel I/O for use on both workstations and servers. The focus of requests and DMA to transfer data directly between the paper is on the mechanisms used by XFS to scale user buffers and the underlying disk drives. These capacity and performance in supporting very large file mechanisms allow us to recover even very large file systems. The large file system support includes mech- systems after a crash in typically less than 15 seconds, anisms for managing large files, large numbers of to manage very large file systems efficiently, and to files, large directories, and very high performance I/O. perform file I/O at hardware speeds that can exceed 300 MB/sec. In discussing the mechanisms used for scalability we include both descriptions of the XFS on-disk data XFS has been shipping to customers since December structures and analyses of why they were chosen. We of 1994 in a version of IRIX 5.3, and XFS will be the discuss in detail our use of B+ trees in place of many default file system installed on all SGI systems start- of the more traditional linear file system structures. ing with the release of IRIX 6.2 in early 1996. The file system is stable and is being used on production XFS has been shipping to customers since December servers throughout Silicon Graphics and at many of of 1994 in a version of IRIX 5.3, and we are continu- our customers’ sites. ing to improve its performance and add features in upcoming releases. We include performance results In the rest of this paper we describe why we chose to from running on the latest version of XFS to demon- focus on scalability in the design of XFS and the strate the viability of our design. mechanisms that are the result of that focus. We start with an explanation of why we chose to start from scratch rather than enhancing the old IRIX file sys- 1. Introduction tem. We next describe the overall architecture of XFS, XFS is the next generation local file system for Sili- followed by the specific mechanisms of XFS which con Graphics’ workstations and servers. It is a general allow it to scale in both capacity and performance. purpose Unix file system that runs on workstations Finally, we present performance results from running with 16 megabytes of memory and a single disk drive on real systems to demonstrate the success of the XFS and also on large SMP network servers with gigabytes design. of memory and terabytes of disk capacity. In this paper we describe the XFS file system with a focus on 2. Why a New File System? the mechanisms it uses to manage large file systems on large computer systems. The file system literature began predicting the coming of the "I/O bottleneck" years ago [Ousterhout90], and The most notable mechanism used by XFS to increase we experienced it first hand at SGI. The problem was the scalability of the file system is the pervasive use of not the I/O performance of our hardware, but the limi- B+ trees [Comer79]. B+ trees are used for tracking tations imposed by the old IRIX file system, EFS free extents in the file system rather than bitmaps. B+ [SGI92]. EFS is similar to the Berkeley Fast File Sys- trees are used to index directory entries rather than tem [McKusick84] in structure, but it uses extents using linear lookup structures. B+ trees are used to rather than individual blocks for file space allocation manage file extent maps that overflow the number of and I/O. EFS could not support file systems greater direct pointers kept in the inodes. Finally, B+ trees are than 8 gigabytes in size, files greater than 2 gigabytes used to keep track of dynamically allocated inodes in size, or give applications access to the full I/O scattered throughout the file system. In addition, XFS bandwidth of the hardware on which they were running. EFS was not designed with large systems and 3. Scalability Problems Addressed by file systems in mind, and it was faltering under the XFS pressure coming from the needs of new applications In designing XFS, we focused in on the specific prob- and the capabilities of new hardware. While we con- lems with EFS and other existing file systems that we sidered enhancing EFS to meet these new demands, felt we needed to address. In this section we consider the required changes were so great that we decided it several of the specific scalability problems addressed would be better to replace EFS with an entirely new in the design of XFS and why the mechanisms used in file system designed with these new demands in mind. other file systems are not sufficient. One example of a new application that places new demands on the file system is the storage and retrieval Slow Crash Recovery of uncompressed video. This requires approximately A file system with a crash recovery procedure that is 30 MB/sec of I/O throughput for a single stream, and dependent on the file system size cannot be practically just one hour of such video requires 108 gigabytes of used on large systems, because the data on the system disk storage. While most people work with com- is unavailable for an unacceptably long period after a pressed video to make the I/O throughput and capac- crash. EFS and file systems based on the BSD Fast ity requirements easier to manage, many customers, File System [McKusick84] falter in this area due to for example those involved in professional video edit- their dependence on a file system scavenger program ing, come to SGI looking to work with uncompressed to restore the file system to a consistent state after a video. Another video storage example that influenced crash. Running fsck over an 8 gigabyte file system the design of XFS is a video on demand server, such with a few hundred thousand inodes today takes a few as the one being deployed by Time Warner in minutes. This is already too slow to satisfy modern Orlando. These servers store thousands of compressed availability requirements, and the time it takes to movies. One thousand typical movies take up around recover in this way only gets worse when applied to 2.7 terabytes of disk space. Playing two hundred high larger file systems with more files. Most recently quality 0.5 MB/sec MPEG streams concurrently uses designed file systems apply database recovery tech- 100 MB/sec of I/O bandwidth. Applications with sim- niques to their metadata recovery procedure to avoid ilar requirements are appearing in database and scien- this pitfall. tific computing, where file system scalability and per- formance is sometimes more important than CPU per- Inability to Support Large File Systems formance. The requirements we derived from these applications were support for terabytes of disk space, We needed a file system that could manage even huge files, and hundreds of megabytes per second of petabytes of storage, but all of the file systems we I/O bandwidth. know of are limited to either a few gigabytes or a few terabytes in size. EFS is limited to only 8 gigabytes in We also needed to ensure that the file system could size. These limitations stem from the use of data provide access to the full capabilities and capacity of structures that don’t scale, for example the bitmap in our hardware, and to do so with a minimal amount of EFS, and from the use of 32 bit block pointers overhead. This meant supporting systems with multi- throughout the on-disk structures of the file system. ple terabytes of disk capacity. With today’s 9 gigabyte The 32 bit block pointers can address at most 4 billion disk drives it only takes 112 disk drives to surpass 1 blocks, so even with an 8 kilobyte block size the file terabyte of storage capacity. These requirements also system is limited to a theoretical maximum of 32 ter- meant providing access to the large amount of disk abytes in size. bandwidth that is available in such high capacity sys- tems. Today, SGI’s high end systems have demon- Inability to Support Large, Sparse Files strated sustained disk bandwidths in excess of 500 megabytes per second. We needed to make that band- None of the file systems we looked at support full 64 width available to applications using the file system. bit, sparse files. EFS did not support sparse files at all. Finally, these requirements meant doing all of this Most others use the block mapping scheme created for without using unreasonable portions of the available FFS. We decided early on that we would manage CPU and memory on the systems.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Serverless Network File Systems
    Serverless Network File Systems Thomas E. Anderson, Michael D. Dahlin, Jeanna M. Neefe, David A. Patterson, Drew S. Roselli, and Randolph Y. Wang Computer Science Division University of California at Berkeley Abstract In this paper, we propose a new paradigm for network file system design, serverless network file systems. While traditional network file systems rely on a central server machine, a serverless system utilizes workstations cooperating as peers to provide all file system services. Any machine in the system can store, cache, or control any block of data. Our approach uses this location independence, in combination with fast local area networks, to provide better performance and scalability than traditional file systems. Further, because any machine in the system can assume the responsibilities of a failed component, our serverless design also provides high availability via redundant data storage. To demonstrate our approach, we have implemented a prototype serverless network file system called xFS. Preliminary performance measurements suggest that our architecture achieves its goal of scalability. For instance, in a 32-node xFS system with 32 active clients, each client receives nearly as much read or write throughput as it would see if it were the only active client. 1. Introduction A serverless network file system distributes storage, cache, and control over cooperating workstations. This approach contrasts with traditional file systems such as Netware [Majo94], NFS [Sand85], Andrew [Howa88], and Sprite [Nels88] where a central server machine stores all data and satisfies all client cache misses. Such a central server is both a performance and reliability bottleneck. A serverless system, on the other hand, distributes control processing and data storage to achieve scalable high performance, migrates the responsibilities of failed components to the remaining machines to provide high availability, and scales gracefully to simplify system management.
    [Show full text]
  • XFS: There and Back ...And There Again? Slide 1 of 38
    XFS: There and Back.... .... and There Again? Dave Chinner <[email protected]> <[email protected]> XFS: There and Back .... and There Again? Slide 1 of 38 Overview • Story Time • Serious Things • These Days • Shiny Things • Interesting Times XFS: There and Back .... and There Again? Slide 2 of 38 Story Time • Way back in the early '90s • Storage exceeding 32 bit capacities • 64 bit CPUs, large scale MP • Hundreds of disks in a single machine • XFS: There..... Slide 3 of 38 "x" is for Undefined xFS had to support: • Fast Crash Recovery • Large File Systems • Large, Sparse Files • Large, Contiguous Files • Large Directories • Large Numbers of Files • - Scalability in the XFS File System, 1995 http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_usenix/index.html XFS: There..... Slide 4 of 38 The Early Years XFS: There..... Slide 5 of 38 The Early Years • Late 1994: First Release, Irix 5.3 • Mid 1996: Default FS, Irix 6.2 • Already at Version 4 • Attributes • Journalled Quotas • link counts > 64k • feature masks • • XFS: There..... Slide 6 of 38 The Early Years • • Allocation alignment to storage geometry (1997) • Unwritten extents (1998) • Version 2 directories (1999) • mkfs time configurable block size • Scalability to tens of millions of directory entries • • XFS: There..... Slide 7 of 38 What's that Linux Thing? • Feature development mostly stalled • Irix development focussed on CXFS • New team formed for Linux XFS port! • Encumberance review! • Linux was missing lots of bits XFS needed • Lot of work needed • • XFS: There and..... Slide 8 of 38 That Linux Thing? XFS: There and..... Slide 9 of 38 Light that fire! • 2000: SGI releases XFS under GPL • • 2001: First stable XFS release • • 2002: XFS merged into 2.5.36 • • JFS follows similar timeline • XFS: There and....
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Filesystem Performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Vs
    COMPARING FILE SYSTEM I/O PERFORMANCE: RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX 6 VS. MICROSOFT WINDOWS SERVER 2012 When choosing an operating system platform for your servers, you should know what I/O performance to expect from the operating system and file systems you select. In the Principled Technologies labs, using the IOzone file system benchmark, we compared the I/O performance of two operating systems and file system pairs, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 with ext4 and XFS file systems, and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with NTFS and ReFS file systems. Our testing compared out-of-the-box configurations for each operating system, as well as tuned configurations optimized for better performance, to demonstrate how a few simple adjustments can elevate I/O performance of a file system. We found that file systems available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered better I/O performance than those shipped with Windows Server 2012, in both out-of- the-box and optimized configurations. With I/O performance playing such a critical role in most business applications, selecting the right file system and operating system combination is critical to help you achieve your hardware’s maximum potential. APRIL 2013 A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT Commissioned by Red Hat, Inc. About file system and platform configurations While you can use IOzone to gauge disk performance, we concentrated on the file system performance of two operating systems (OSs): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, where we examined the ext4 and XFS file systems, and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Datacenter Edition, where we examined NTFS and ReFS file systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Silicon Graphics, Inc. Scalable Filesystems XFS & CXFS
    Silicon Graphics, Inc. Scalable Filesystems XFS & CXFS Presented by: Yingping Lu January 31, 2007 Outline • XFS Overview •XFS Architecture • XFS Fundamental Data Structure – Extent list –B+Tree – Inode • XFS Filesystem On-Disk Layout • XFS Directory Structure • CXFS: shared file system ||January 31, 2007 Page 2 XFS: A World-Class File System –Scalable • Full 64 bit support • Dynamic allocation of metadata space • Scalable structures and algorithms –Fast • Fast metadata speeds • High bandwidths • High transaction rates –Reliable • Field proven • Log/Journal ||January 31, 2007 Page 3 Scalable –Full 64 bit support • Large Filesystem – 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 = 264-1 = 18 million TB (exabytes) • Large Files – 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 = 263-1 = 9 million TB (exabytes) – Dynamic allocation of metadata space • Inode size configurable, inode space allocated dynamically • Unlimited number of files (constrained by storage space) – Scalable structures and algorithms (B-Trees) • Performance is not an issue with large numbers of files and directories ||January 31, 2007 Page 4 Fast –Fast metadata speeds • B-Trees everywhere (Nearly all lists of metadata information) – Directory contents – Metadata free lists – Extent lists within file – High bandwidths (Storage: RM6700) • 7.32 GB/s on one filesystem (32p Origin2000, 897 FC disks) • >4 GB/s in one file (same Origin, 704 FC disks) • Large extents (4 KB to 4 GB) • Request parallelism (multiple AGs) • Delayed allocation, Read ahead/Write behind – High transaction rates: 92,423 IOPS (Storage: TP9700)
    [Show full text]
  • W4118: File Systems
    W4118: file systems Instructor: Junfeng Yang References: Modern Operating Systems (3rd edition), Operating Systems Concepts (8th edition), previous W4118, and OS at MIT, Stanford, and UWisc Outline File system concepts . What is a file? . What operations can be performed on files? . What is a directory and how is it organized? File implementation . How to allocate disk space to files? 1 What is a file User view . Named byte array • Types defined by user . Persistent across reboots and power failures OS view . Map bytes as collection of blocks on physical storage . Stored on nonvolatile storage device • Magnetic Disks 2 Role of file system Naming . How to “name” files . Translate “name” + offset logical block # Reliability . Must not lose file data Protection . Must mediate file access from different users Disk management . Fair, efficient use of disk space . Fast access to files 3 File metadata Name – only information kept in human-readable form Identifier – unique tag (number) identifies file within file system (inode number in UNIX) Location – pointer to file location on device Size – current file size Protection – controls who can do reading, writing, executing Time, date, and user identification – data for protection, security, and usage monitoring How is metadata stored? (inode in UNIX) 4 File operations int creat(const char* pathname, mode_t mode) int unlink(const char* pathname) int rename(const char* oldpath, const char* newpath) int open(const char* pathname, int flags, mode_t mode) int read(int fd, void* buf, size_t count); int write(int fd, const void* buf, size_t count) int lseek(int fd, offset_t offset, int whence) int truncate(const char* pathname, offset_t len) ..
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 17: Files and Directories
    11/1/16 CS 422/522 Design & Implementation of Operating Systems Lecture 17: Files and Directories Zhong Shao Dept. of Computer Science Yale University Acknowledgement: some slides are taken from previous versions of the CS422/522 lectures taught by Prof. Bryan Ford and Dr. David Wolinsky, and also from the official set of slides accompanying the OSPP textbook by Anderson and Dahlin. The big picture ◆ Lectures before the fall break: – Management of CPU & concurrency – Management of main memory & virtual memory ◆ Current topics --- “Management of I/O devices” – Last week: I/O devices & device drivers – Last week: storage devices – This week: file systems * File system structure * Naming and directories * Efficiency and performance * Reliability and protection 1 11/1/16 This lecture ◆ Implementing file system abstraction Physical Reality File System Abstraction block oriented byte oriented physical sector #’s named files no protection users protected from each other data might be corrupted robust to machine failures if machine crashes File system components ◆ Disk management User – Arrange collection of disk blocks into files File File ◆ Naming Naming access – User gives file name, not track or sector number, to locate data Disk management ◆ Security / protection – Keep information secure Disk drivers ◆ Reliability/durability – When system crashes, lose stuff in memory, but want files to be durable 2 11/1/16 User vs. system view of a file ◆ User’s view – Durable data structures ◆ System’s view (system call interface) – Collection of bytes (Unix) ◆ System’s view (inside OS): – Collection of blocks – A block is a logical transfer unit, while a sector is the physical transfer unit.
    [Show full text]
  • CXFSTM Administration Guide for SGI® Infinitestorage
    CXFSTM Administration Guide for SGI® InfiniteStorage 007–4016–025 CONTRIBUTORS Written by Lori Johnson Illustrated by Chrystie Danzer Engineering contributions to the book by Vladmir Apostolov, Rich Altmaier, Neil Bannister, François Barbou des Places, Ken Beck, Felix Blyakher, Laurie Costello, Mark Cruciani, Rupak Das, Alex Elder, Dave Ellis, Brian Gaffey, Philippe Gregoire, Gary Hagensen, Ryan Hankins, George Hyman, Dean Jansa, Erik Jacobson, John Keller, Dennis Kender, Bob Kierski, Chris Kirby, Ted Kline, Dan Knappe, Kent Koeninger, Linda Lait, Bob LaPreze, Jinglei Li, Yingping Lu, Steve Lord, Aaron Mantel, Troy McCorkell, LaNet Merrill, Terry Merth, Jim Nead, Nate Pearlstein, Bryce Petty, Dave Pulido, Alain Renaud, John Relph, Elaine Robinson, Dean Roehrich, Eric Sandeen, Yui Sakazume, Wesley Smith, Kerm Steffenhagen, Paddy Sreenivasan, Roger Strassburg, Andy Tran, Rebecca Underwood, Connie Woodward, Michelle Webster, Geoffrey Wehrman, Sammy Wilborn COPYRIGHT © 1999–2007 SGI. All rights reserved; provided portions may be copyright in third parties, as indicated elsewhere herein. No permission is granted to copy, distribute, or create derivative works from the contents of this electronic documentation in any manner, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of SGI. LIMITED RIGHTS LEGEND The software described in this document is "commercial computer software" provided with restricted rights (except as to included open/free source) as specified in the FAR 52.227-19 and/or the DFAR 227.7202, or successive sections. Use beyond
    [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]
  • Compatibility Matrix for CTE Agent with Data Security Manager Release 7.0.0 Document Version 15 January 19, 2021 Contents
    Compatibility Matrix for CTE Agent with Data Security Manager Release 7.0.0 Document Version 15 January 19, 2021 Contents Rebranding Announcement 6 CTE Agent for Linux 6 Interoperability 6 Table 1: Linux Interoperability with Third Party Applications 6 ESG (Efficient Storage GuardPoint) Support 7 Table 2: Efficient Storage GuardPoint Support 7 Linux Agent Raw Device Support Matrix 8 Red Hat, CentOS, and OEL non-UEK 6.10 Raw Device Support 8 Table 3: Red Hat 6.10 | CentOS 6.10 | OEL non-UEK 6.10 (x86_64)3 8 Red Hat, CentOS, and OEL non-UEK 7.5-7.9 Raw Device Support 9 Table 4: Red Hat 7.5-7.9 | CentOS 7.5-7.8 | OEL non-UEK 7.5-7.8 (x86_64)1,2 9 Red Hat, CentOS, and OEL non-UEK 8 Raw Device Support 9 Table 5: Red Hat 8.0-8.2 | CentOS 8.0-8.2 | OEL non-UEK 8.0-8.2 (x86_64)1,2 9 SLES 12 Raw Device Support 10 Table 6: SLES 12 SP3, SLES 12 SP4, and SLES 12 SP5 (x86_64)2 10 SLES 15 Raw Device Support 10 Table 7: SLES 15, SLES 15 SP1, and SLES 15 SP2 (x86_64) 10 Redhat 6.10/7.5 ACFS Support with Secvm 11 Table 8: Oracle ACFS/Secvm support on Redhat 6.10/7.5 (x86_64) 11 Table 9: Oracle ACFS/Secvm Stack with Red Hat 6.10/7.5 (x86_64) 11 Linux Agent File System Support Matrix 12 Red Hat, CentOS, and OEL non-UEK 6. 10 File System Support 12 Table 10: Red Hat 6.10 | CentOS 6.10 | OEL non-UEK 6.10 (x86_64)1,3 12 LDT Feature for Red Hat, CentOS, and OEL non-UEK 6.10 File System Support 13 Table 11: Red Hat 6.10 | CentOS 6.10 | OEL non-UEK 6.10 (x86_64)1 13 Red Hat, CentOS, and OEL non-UEK 7.5 - 7.9 File System Support 14 Table 12: Red Hat 7.5-7.9 | CentOS
    [Show full text]
  • Operating Systems Lecture #5: File Management
    Operating Systems Lecture #5: File Management Written by David Goodwin based on the lecture series of Dr. Dayou Li and the book Understanding Operating Systems 4thed. by I.M.Flynn and A.McIver McHoes (2006) Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Bedfordshire. Operating Systems, 2013 25th February 2013 Outline Lecture #5 File Management David Goodwin 1 Introduction University of Bedfordshire 2 Interaction with the file manager Introduction Interaction with the file manager 3 Files Files Physical storage 4 Physical storage allocation allocation Directories 5 Directories File system Access 6 File system Data compression summary 7 Access 8 Data compression 9 summary Operating Systems 46 Lecture #5 File Management David Goodwin University of Bedfordshire Introduction 3 Interaction with the file manager Introduction Files Physical storage allocation Directories File system Access Data compression summary Operating Systems 46 Introduction Lecture #5 File Management David Goodwin University of Bedfordshire Introduction 4 Responsibilities of the file manager Interaction with the file manager 1 Keep track of where each file is stored Files 2 Use a policy that will determine where and how the files will Physical storage be stored, making sure to efficiently use the available storage allocation space and provide efficient access to the files. Directories 3 Allocate each file when a user has been cleared for access to File system it, and then record its use. Access 4 Deallocate the file when the file is to be returned to storage, Data compression and communicate its availability to others who may be summary waiting for it. Operating Systems 46 Definitions Lecture #5 File Management field is a group of related bytes that can be identified by David Goodwin University of the user with a name, type, and size.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to ISO 9660
    Disc Manufacturing, Inc. A QUIXOTE COMPANY Introduction to ISO 9660, what it is, how it is implemented, and how it has been extended. Clayton Summers Copyright © 1993 by Disc Manufacturing, Inc. All rights reserved. WHO IS DMI? Disc Manufacturing, Inc. (DMI) manufactures all compact disc formats (i.e., CD-Audio, CD-ROM, CD-ROM XA, CDI, PHOTO CD, 3DO, KARAOKE, etc.) at two plant sites in the U.S.; Huntsville, AL, and Anaheim, CA. To help you, DMI has one of the largest Product Engineering/Technical Support staff and sales force dedicated solely to CD-ROM in the industry. The company has had a long term commitment to optical disc technology and has performed developmental work and manufactured (laser) optical discs of various types since 1981. In 1983, DMI manufactured the first compact disc in the United States. DMI has developed extensive mastering expertise during this time and is frequently called upon by other companies to provide special mastering services for products in development. In August 1991, DMI purchased the U.S. CD-ROM business from the Philips and Du Pont Optical Company (PDO). PDO employees in sales, marketing and technical services were retained. DMI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Quixote Corporation, a publicly owned corporation whose stock is traded on the NASDAQ exchange as QUIX. Quixote is a diversified technology company composed of Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. (manufactures highway crash cushions), Stenograph Corporation (manufactures shorthand machines and computer systems for court reporting) and Disc Manufacturing, Inc. We would be pleased to help you with your CD project or answer any questions you may have.
    [Show full text]
  • Xfs: a Wide Area Mass Storage File System
    xFS: A Wide Area Mass Storage File System Randolph Y. Wang and Thomas E. Anderson frywang,[email protected] erkeley.edu Computer Science Division University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 Abstract Scalability : The central le server mo del breaks down when there can b e: The current generation of le systems are inadequate thousands of clients, in facing the new technological challenges of wide area terabytes of total client caches for the servers networks and massive storage. xFS is a prototyp e le to keep track of, system we are developing to explore the issues brought billions of les, and ab out by these technological advances. xFS adapts p etabytes of total storage. many of the techniques used in the eld of high p er- Availability : As le systems are made more scalable, formance multipro cessor design. It organizes hosts into allowing larger groups of clients and servers to work a hierarchical structure so lo cality within clusters of together, it b ecomes more likely at any given time workstations can b e b etter exploited. By using an that some clients and servers will b e unable to com- invalidation-based write back cache coherence proto col, municate. xFS minimizes network usage. It exploits the le system Existing distributed le systems were originally de- naming structure to reduce cache coherence state. xFS signed for lo cal area networks and disks as the b ottom also integrates di erent storage technologies in a uni- layer of the storage hierarchy. They are inadequate in form manner. Due to its intelligent use of lo cal hosts facing the challenges of wide area networks and massive and lo cal storage, we exp ect xFS to achieve b etter p er- storage.
    [Show full text]