DOCSLIB.ORG

A Survey of Distributed File System Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Survey of Distributed File System Technology A Survey of Distributed File System Technology Jakob Blomer CERN PH/SFT and Stanford University ACAT 2014 Prague 1 / 23 Agenda Motivation Physics experiments store their data in distributed file systems ∙ In High Energy Physics ∙ ∙ Global federation of file systems ∙ Hundreds of peta-bytes of data ∙ Hundreds of millions of objects Outline 1 Usage of distributed file systems 2 Survey and taxonomy 3 Critical areas in distributed file systems for physics applications 4 Developments and future challenges 2 / 23 Distributed File Systems A distributed file system (DFS) provides 1 persistent storage 2 of opaque data (files) 3 in a hierarchical namespace that is shared among networked nodes Files survive the lifetime of processes and nodes ∙ POSIX-like interface: open(), close(), read(), write(),... ∙ ∙ Typically transparent to applications Data model and interface distinguish a DFS from ∙ a distributed (No-)SQL database or a distributed key-value store 3 / 23 1 Distributed File Systems Popular DFSs: A distributed file system (DFS) provides AFS, Ceph, CernVM-FS, 1 persistent storage dCache, EOS, FhGFS, GlusterFS, GPFS, HDFS, 2 of opaque data (files) Lustre, MooseFS, NFS, 3 in a hierarchical namespace that is PanFS, XrootD shared among networked nodes Files survive the lifetime of processes and nodes ∙ POSIX-like interface: open(), close(), read(), write(),... ∙ ∙ Typically transparent to applications Data model and interface distinguish a DFS from ∙ a distributed (No-)SQL database or a distributed key-value store 3 / 23 1 Use Cases and Demands Change Frequency Request Rate MB/s Mean File Size Data Classes Request Rate IOPS Home folders ∙ Data Physics Data Value ∙ ∙ Recorded ∙ Simulated Volume ∙ Analysis results Confidentiality Software binaries ∙ Cache Hit Rate Scratch area Redundancy ∙ [Data are illustrative] 4 / 23 Use Cases and Demands Change Frequency Request Rate MB/s Mean File Size Data Classes Request Rate IOPS Home folders – ∙ Data Physics Data Value ∙ ∙ Recorded ∙ Simulated Volume ∙ Analysis results Confidentiality Software binaries ∙ Cache Hit Rate Scratch area Redundancy ∙ [Data are illustrative] 4 / 23 Use Cases and Demands Change Frequency Request Rate MB/s Mean File Size Data Classes Request Rate IOPS Home folders – ∙ Data Physics Data – Value ∙ ∙ Recorded ∙ Simulated Volume ∙ Analysis results Confidentiality Software binaries ∙ Cache Hit Rate Scratch area Redundancy ∙ [Data are illustrative] 4 / 23 Use Cases and Demands Change Frequency Request Rate MB/s Mean File Size Data Classes Request Rate IOPS Home folders – ∙ Data Physics Data – Value ∙ ∙ Recorded ∙ Simulated Volume ∙ Analysis results Confidentiality Software binaries – ∙ Cache Hit Rate Scratch area Redundancy ∙ [Data are illustrative] 4 / 23 Use Cases and Demands Change Frequency Request Rate MB/s Mean File Size Data Classes Request Rate IOPS Home folders – ∙ Data Physics Data – Value ∙ ∙ Recorded ∙ Simulated Volume ∙ Analysis results Confidentiality Software binaries – ∙ Cache Hit Rate Scratch area – Redundancy ∙ [Data are illustrative] Depending on the use case, the dimensions span orders of magnitude (logarithmic axes) 4 / 23 Distributed File Systems and Use Cases > ls . It is difficult to perform well event_sample.root ∙ under usage characteristics that analysis.C differ by 4 orders of magnitude File system performance is File system: ∙ “please take special care of this file!” highly susceptible to characteristics of individual applications There is no interface to > ls / ∙ specify quality of service (QoS) /home for a particular file /data /software We will deal with a number of /scratch Implicit QoS DFSs for the foreseeable future 5 / 23 Distributed File Systems and Use Cases > ls . It is difficult to perform well event_sample.root ∙ under usage characteristics that analysis.C differ by 4 orders of magnitude File system performance is File system: ∙ “please take special care of this file!” highly susceptible to characteristics of individual applications There is no interface to > ls / ∙ specify quality of service (QoS) /home for a particular file /data /software We will deal with a number of /scratch Implicit QoS ! DFSs for the foreseeable future 5 / 23 POSIX Compliance File system operations essential create(), unlink(), stat() open(), close(), No DFS is fully POSIX read(), write(), seek() ∙ compliant difficult for DFSs It must provide just enough to ∙ File locks not break applications Atomic rename() Field test necessary Open unlinked files ∙ Hard links impossible for DFSs Device files, IPC files 6 / 23 Architecture Sketches Network shares, client-server /share /share ∙ ∙ ∙ Goals: Simplicity, separate storage from application Example: NFS 3 7 / 23 Architecture Sketches Namespace delegation /physics /physics/ams subtree ∙ ∙ ∙ Goals: Scaling network shares, decentral administration Example: AFS 8 / 23 Architecture Sketches Object-based file system delete() meta-data create() read() write() ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ data ∙ ∙ Goals: Separate meta-data from data, incremental scaling Example: Google File System 9 / 23 Architecture Sketches Parallel file system delete() meta-data create() read() write() ∙ data ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Goals: Maximum throughput, optimized for large files Example: Lustre 10 / 23 Architecture Sketches Distributed meta-data delete() meta-data create() read() write() ∙ data ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Goals: Avoid single point of failure and meta-data bottleneck Example: Ceph 11 / 23 Architecture Sketches Symmetric, peer-to-peer hash(pathn) Distributed hash table — Hosts of pathn ○ Goals: Conceptual simplicity, inherently scalable Difficult to deal with node churn, long lookup beyond LAN Example: GlusterFS 12 / 23 Milestones in Distributed File Systems Biased towards open-source, production file systems 2002 2005 1983 1985 1995 2000 2003 2007 AFS NFS Zebra OceanStore GFS Ceph Venti XRootD 13 / 23 Milestones in Distributed File Systems Biased towards open-source, production file systems 2002 2005 1983 1985 1995 2000 2003 2007 ∙ AFS NFS Zebra OceanStore GFS Ceph Venti XRootD ∙ Andrew File System Client-server “AFS was the first safe and efficient distributed com- Roaming home folders puting system, available [. ] on campus. It was a ∙ clear precursor to the Dropbox-like software pack- Identity tokens and ∙ ages today. [. ] [It] allowed students (like Drew access control lists (ACLs) Houston and Arash Ferdowsi) access to all their Decentralized operation (“Cells”) stuff from any connected computer.” ∙ http://www.wired.com/2011/12/backdrop-dropbox 13 / 23 Milestones in Distributed File Systems Biased towards open-source, production file systems 2002 2005 1983 1985 1995 2000 2003 2007 ∙ AFS NFS Zebra OceanStore GFS Ceph Venti XRootD ∙ Network File System Client-server Focus on portability ∙ Separation of protocol ∙ and implementation Stateless servers ∙ ∙ Fast crash recovery Sandberg, Goldberg, Kleiman, Walsh, Lyon (1985) 13 / 23 Milestones in Distributed File Systems Biased towards open-source, production file systems 2002 2005 1983 1985 1995 2000 2003 2007 ∙ AFS NFS Zebra OceanStore GFS Ceph Venti XRootD ∙ Zebra File System File B File C ParallelFile Manager File A File D Client Client Stripe Striping and parity Cleaner ∙ Redundant array of 1 2 3 4 5 6 Client’s Log ∙ inexpensive nodes (RAIN)Network Log-structured data ∙ Storage Storage 1 2 3 1 ⊗ 2 ⊗ 3 Server Server Storage Storage 4 5 6 4 ⊗ 5 ⊗ 6 Server Server Figure 5: Zebra schematic. Clients run applications; File Servers storage servers store data. The file manager and the stripe cleaner can run on any machine in the system, Figure 4. Per-client striping in Hartman,Zebra. Each Ousterhout client (1995) although it is likely that one machine will run both of forms its new file data into a single append-only log and them. A storage server may also be a client. stripes this log across the servers. In this example file A spans several servers while file B is stored entirely on a space reclaimed from the logs? Zebra solves this problem single server. Parity is computed for the log, not for with a stripe cleaner, which is analogous to the cleaner in a individual files. log-structured file system. The next section13 /provides 23 a more sequential transfers. LFS is particularly effective for writing detailed discussion of these issues and several others. small files, since it can write many files in a single transfer; in contrast, traditional file systems require at least two 3 Zebra Components independent disk transfers for each file. Rosenblum reported a tenfold speedup over traditional file systems for writing The Zebra file system contains four main components small files. LFS is also well-suited for RAIDs because it as shown in Figure 5: clients, which are the machines that batches small writes together into large sequential transfers run application programs; storage servers, which store file and avoids the expensive parity updates associated with data; a file manager, which manages the file and directory small random writes. structure of the file system; and a stripe cleaner, which Zebra can be thought of as a log-structured network file reclaims unused space on the storage servers. There may be system: whereas LFS uses the logging approach at the any number of clients and storage servers but only a single interface between a file server and its disks, Zebra uses the file manager and stripe cleaner. More than one of these logging approach at the interface between a client and its components may share a single physical machine; for servers. Figure 4 illustrates this approach, which we call example, it is possible for one machine to be both a storage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Andrew File System (AFS) Google File System February 5, 2004
    Advanced Topics in Computer Systems, CS262B Prof Eric A. Brewer Andrew File System (AFS) Google File System February 5, 2004 I. AFS Goal: large-scale campus wide file system (5000 nodes) o must be scalable, limit work of core servers o good performance o meet FS consistency requirements (?) o managable system admin (despite scale) 400 users in the “prototype” -- a great reality check (makes the conclusions meaningful) o most applications work w/o relinking or recompiling Clients: o user-level process, Venus, that handles local caching, + FS interposition to catch all requests o interaction with servers only on file open/close (implies whole-file caching) o always check cache copy on open() (in prototype) Vice (servers): o Server core is trusted; called “Vice” o servers have one process per active client o shared data among processes only via file system (!) o lock process serializes and manages all lock/unlock requests o read-only replication of namespace (centralized updates with slow propagation) o prototype supported about 20 active clients per server, goal was >50 Revised client cache: o keep data cache on disk, metadata cache in memory o still whole file caching, changes written back only on close o directory updates are write through, but cached locally for reads o instead of check on open(), assume valid unless you get an invalidation callback (server must invalidate all copies before committing an update) o allows name translation to be local (since you can now avoid round-trip for each step of the path) Revised servers: 1 o move
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Distributed File Systems
    A Survey of Distributed File Systems M. Satyanarayanan Department of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University February 1989 Abstract Abstract This paper is a survey of the current state of the art in the design and implementation of distributed file systems. It consists of four major parts: an overview of background material, case studies of a number of contemporary file systems, identification of key design techniques, and an examination of current research issues. The systems surveyed are Sun NFS, Apollo Domain, Andrew, IBM AIX DS, AT&T RFS, and Sprite. The coverage of background material includes a taxonomy of file system issues, a brief history of distributed file systems, and a summary of empirical research on file properties. A comprehensive bibliography forms an important of the paper. Copyright (C) 1988,1989 M. Satyanarayanan The author was supported in the writing of this paper by the National Science Foundation (Contract No. CCR-8657907), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Order No. 4976, Contract F33615-84-K-1520) and the IBM Corporation (Faculty Development Award). The views and conclusions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official policies of the funding agencies or Carnegie Mellon University. 1 1. Introduction The sharing of data in distributed systems is already common and will become pervasive as these systems grow in scale and importance. Each user in a distributed system is potentially a creator as well as a consumer of data. A user may wish to make his actions contingent upon information from a remote site, or may wish to update remote information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Scale on Distributed File System Design
    IEEE TRANSAmIONS ON SOFIWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. 18, NO. I, JANUARY lY92 The Influence of Scale on Distributed File System Design Mahadev Satyanarayanan, Member, IEEE Abstract- Scale should be recognized as a primary factor into autonomous or semi-autonomous organizations for man- influencing the architecture and implementation of distributed agement purposes. Hence a distributed system that has many systems. This paper uses Andrew and Coda, distributed file users or nodes will also span many organizations. Regardless systems built at Carnegie Mellon University, to validate this proposition. Performance, operability, and security are dominant of the specific metric of scale, the designs of distributed considerations in the design of these systems. Availability is a systems that scale well are fundamentally different from less further consideration in the design of Coda. Client caching, scalable designs. bulk data transfer, token-based mutual authentication, and hi- In this paper we describe the lessons we have learned erarchical organization of the protection domain have emerged about scalability from the Andrew File System and the Codu as mechanisms that enhance scalability. The separation of con- cerns made possible by functional specialization has also proved File System. These systems are particularly appropriate for valuable in scaling. Heterogeneity is an important by-product our discussion, because they have been designed for growth of growth, but the mechanisms available to cope with it are to thousands of nodes and users. We focus on distributed rudimentary. Physical separation of clients and servers turns out file systems, because they are the most widely used kind of to be a critical requirement for scalability.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed File Systems
    Please note: Please start working your research project (proposal will be due on Feb. 19 in class) Each group needs to turn in a printed version of their proposal and intermediate report. Also, before class each group needs to email me a DOC version. Instructor’s Guide for Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edn. 4 © Pearson Education 2005 Remote Procedure Call (1): at-least-once or at-most-once semantics client: "stub" instead of "proxy" (same function, different names) behaves like a local procedure, marshal arguments, communicate the request server: dispatcher "stub": unmarshal arguments, communicate the results back Instructor’s Guide for Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edn. 4 © Pearson Education 2005 Remote Procedure Call (2) client process server process Request Reply client stub server stub procedure procedure client service program Communication Communication procedure module module dispatcher Instructor’s Guide for Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edn. 4 © Pearson Education 2005 Sun RPC (1): Designed for client-server communication in the SUN NFS (network file system) Supplied as a part of SUN and other UNIX operating systems Over either UDP or TCP Provides an interface definition language (IDL) initially XDR is for data representation, extended to be IDL less modern than CORBA IDL and Java program numbers (obtained from a central authority) instead of interface names procedure numbers (used as a procedure identifier) instead of procedure names only a single input parameter is allowed (then we have to use a ?) Offers an interface compiler (rpcgen) for C language, which generates the following: client stub server main procedure, dispatcher, and server stub XDR marshalling, unmarshaling Instructor’s Guide for Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edn.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Evolution of the Apache Hadoop File System(HDFS)
    Design and Evolution of the Apache Hadoop File System(HDFS) Dhruba Borthakur Engineer@Facebook Committer@Apache HDFS SDC, Sept 19 2011 2011 Storage Developer Conference. © Insert Your Company Name. All Rights Reserved. Outline Introduction Yet another file-system, why? Goals of Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) Architecture Overview Rational for Design Decisions 2011 Storage Developer Conference. © Insert Your Company Name. All Rights Reserved. Who Am I? Apache Hadoop FileSystem (HDFS) Committer and PMC Member Core contributor since Hadoop’s infancy Facebook (Hadoop, Hive, Scribe) Yahoo! (Hadoop in Yahoo Search) Veritas (San Point Direct, Veritas File System) IBM Transarc (Andrew File System) Univ of Wisconsin Computer Science Alumni (Condor Project) 2011 Storage Developer Conference. © Insert Your Company Name. All Rights Reserved. Hadoop, Why? Need to process Multi Petabyte Datasets Data may not have strict schema Expensive to build reliability in each application. Failure is expected, rather than exceptional. Elasticity, # of nodes in a cluster is never constant. Need common infrastructure Efficient, reliable, Open Source Apache License 2011 Storage Developer Conference. © Insert Your Company Name. All Rights Reserved. Goals of HDFS Very Large Distributed File System 10K nodes, 1 billion files, 100 PB Assumes Commodity Hardware Files are replicated to handle hardware failure Detect failures and recovers from them Optimized for Batch Processing Data locations exposed so that computations can move to where data resides Provides very high aggregate bandwidth User Space, runs on heterogeneous OS 2011 Storage Developer Conference. © Insert Your Company Name. All Rights Reserved. Commodity Hardware Typically in 2 level architecture – Nodes are commodity PCs – 20-40 nodes/rack – Uplink from rack is 4 gigabit – Rack-internal is 1 gigabit 2011 Storage Developer Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew File System (AFS)
    Andrew File System ♦ Andrew File System (AFS) 8 started as a joint effort of Carnegie Mellon University and IBM 8 today basis for DCE/DFS: the distributed file system included in the Open Software Foundations’s Distributed Computing Environment 8 some UNIX file system usage observations, as pertaining to caching – infrequently updated shared files and local user files will remain valid for long periods of time (the latter because they are being updated on owners workstations) – allocate large local disk cache, e.g., 100 MByte, that can provide a large enough working set for all files of one user such that the file is still in this cache when used next time – assumptions about typical file accesses (based on empirical evidence) iusually small files, less than 10 Kbytes ireads much more common than writes (appr. 6:1) iusually sequential access, random access not frequently found iuser-locality: most files are used by only one user iburstiness of file references: once file has been used, it will be used in the nearer future with high probability Distributed Systems - Fall 2001 V - 39 © Stefan Leue 2002 tele Andrew File System ♦ Andrew File System (AFS) 8 design decisions for AFS – whole-file serving: entire contents of directories and files transfered from server to client (AFS-3: in chunks of 64 Kbytes) – whole file caching: when file transfered to client it will be stored on that client’s local disk Distributed Systems - Fall 2001 V - 40 © Stefan Leue 2002 tele Andrew File System ♦ AFS architecture: Venus, network and Vice Workstations
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Andrew File System with BSD
    Using the Andrew File System with BSD H. Meiland May 4, 2006 Abstract Since the beginning of networks, one of the basic idea’s has been sharing of files; even though with the Internet as advanced as today, simple platform independent file sharing is not common. Why is the closest thing we use WebDAV, a ’neat trick over http’, instead of a real protocol? In this paper the Andrew File System will be described which has been (and is) the file sharing core of many universities and companies world- wide. Also the reason for it’s relative unawareness in the community will be answered, and it’s actual features and performance in comparison with alternative network filesystems. Finally some information will be given on how to use it with our favorite OS: BSD. 1 History • 1984 Carnegie Mellon University, first release • 1989 TransArc Corporation formed by part of original team members • 1994 TransArc purchased by IBM • 1997 Start of Arla development at stacken.kth.se • 2000 IBM releases AFS in opensource (IBM License) • 2000 http://www.OpenAFS.org • 2006 good support for lot’s of platforms, many new features etc. 1 2 Overview 2.1 User point of view 2.1.1 Global namespace While discussing global filesystem, it is easy to dive into a organization, and explain wonderfull features like having replicas of often accessed data in branch-offices, and moving home-directories to local fileservers when mov- ing employees between departments. An essential feature of AFS is often overlooked: a common root as accesspoint of all AFS stored data.
    [Show full text]
  • The Andrew File System (AFS)
    50 The Andrew File System (AFS) The Andrew File System was introduced at Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) 1 in the 1980’s [H+88]. Led by the well-known Professor M. Satya- narayanan of Carnegie-Mellon University (“Satya” for short), the main goal of this project was simple: scale. Specifically, how can one design a distributed file system such that a server can support as many clients as possible? Interestingly, there are numerous aspects of design and implementa- tion that affect scalability. Most important is the design of the protocol be- tween clients and servers. In NFS, for example, the protocol forces clients to check with the server periodically to determine if cached contents have changed; because each check uses server resources (including CPU and network bandwidth), frequent checks like this will limit the number of clients a server can respond to and thus limit scalability. AFS also differs from NFS in that from the beginning, reasonable user- visible behavior was a first-class concern. In NFS, cache consistency is hard to describe because it depends directly on low-level implementa- tion details, including client-side cache timeout intervals. In AFS, cache consistency is simple and readily understood: when the file is opened, a client will generally receive the latest consistent copy from the server. 50.1 AFS Version 1 We will discuss two versions of AFS [H+88, S+85]. The first version (which we will call AFSv1, but actually the original system was called the ITC distributed file system [S+85]) had some of the basic design in place, but didn’t scale as desired, which led to a re-design and the final protocol (which we will call AFSv2, or just AFS) [H+88].
    [Show full text]
  • The Andrew File System (From CMU) Case Study ­ Andrew File System
    DFS Case Studies, Part 2 The Andrew File System (from CMU) Case Study - Andrew File System ● Designed to support information sharing on a large scale by minimizing client-server communications ● Makes heavy use of caching technologies ● Adopted as the basis for the DCE/DFS file system in the Open Software Foundation©s Distributed Computing Environment (DCE) AFS Characteristics ● Provides transparent access to remote shared files for UNIX programs (using the normal UNIX file primitives) ● Programs access to remote files without modification or recompilation ● AFS is compatible with NFS, in that files may be remotely accessed using NFS ● However, AFS differs markedly from NFS in its design and implementation AFS Design Goals ● Scalability is the most important design goal for the AFS designers ● Designed to perform well with larger numbers of active users (when compared to NFS) ● Key strategy in achieving scalability is the caching of whole (complete) files in client nodes AFS Design Characteristics ● Whole-file serving - the entire contents of directories and files are transmitted to client computers by AFS servers ● Whole-file caching - once a copy of a file (or a file- chunk) has been transferred to a client computer, it is stored in a cache on the local disk; the cache is permanent, surviving reboots of the client computer and it is used to satisfy clients© open requests in preference to remote copies whenever possible AFS Observations ● Shared files that are infrequently updated (such as UNIX commands and libraries) and files accessed
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed File Systems
    CS 425 / ECE 428 Distributed Systems Fall 2020 Indranil Gupta (Indy) Lecture 25: Distributed File Systems All slides © IG Jokes for this Topic • Why did NFS like boxing, but AFS did not show up for the fight? Because NFS can do blocks, but AFS is an optimistic person who only sends callback promises. • Did you know why written exams not use too big a page size (larger than letter/A4 size)? Because it can result in false sharing. 2 File System • Contains files and directories (folders) • Higher level of abstraction – Prevents users and processes from dealing with disk blocks and memory blocks 3 File Contents • Typical File Header Block 0 Block 1 … Block N-1 File contents are in here • Timestamps: creation, read, write, header • File type, e.g., .c, .java • Ownership, e.g., edison • Access Control List: who can access this file and in what mode • Reference Count: Number of directories containing this file • May be > 1 (hard linking of files) 4 • When 0, can delete file What about Directories? • They’re just files! • With their “data” containing – The meta-information about files the directory contains – Pointers (on disk) to those files 5 Unix File System: Opening and Closing Files • Uses notion of file descriptors – Handle for a process to access a file • Each process: Needs to open a file before reading/writing file – OS creates an internal datastructure for a file descriptor, returns handle • filedes=open(name, mode) – mode = access mode, e.g., r, w, x • filedes=creat(name, mode) – Create the file, return the file descriptor • close(filedes)
    [Show full text]
  • A Distributed File System for Distributed Conferencing System
    A DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTED CONFERENCING SYSTEM By PHILIP S. YEAGER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003 Copyright 2003 by Philip S. Yeager ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Richard Newman for his help and guidance with this project. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Jonathan C.L. Liu and Dr. Beverly Sanders for serving on my committee. I would like to thank Dr. Joseph Wilson for serving as a substitute at my defense. I would also like to thank Vijay Manian and the other DCS group members for their advice and contributions. I thank my parents and friends for their encouragement and support. Finally, I would like to thank Candice Williams for everything she has done. Without these people this work would not have been possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Of File Systems and Storage Models
    Chapter 4 Of File Systems and Storage Models Disks are always full. It is futile to try to get more disk space. Data expands to fill any void. –Parkinson’sLawasappliedto disks 4.1 Introduction This chapter deals primarily with how we store data. Virtually all computer systems require some way to store data permanently; even so-called “diskless” systems do require access to certain files in order to boot, run and be useful. Albeit stored remotely (or in memory), these bits reside on some sort of storage system. Most frequently, data is stored on local hard disks, but over the last few years more and more of our files have moved “into the cloud”, where di↵erent providers o↵er easy access to large amounts of storage over the network. We have more and more computers depending on access to remote systems, shifting our traditional view of what constitutes a storage device. 74 CHAPTER 4. OF FILE SYSTEMS AND STORAGE MODELS 75 As system administrators, we are responsible for all kinds of devices: we build systems running entirely without local storage just as we maintain the massive enterprise storage arrays that enable decentralized data replication and archival. We manage large numbers of computers with their own hard drives, using a variety of technologies to maximize throughput before the data even gets onto a network. In order to be able to optimize our systems on this level, it is important for us to understand the principal concepts of how data is stored, the di↵erent storage models and disk interfaces.Itisimportanttobeawareofcertain physical properties of our storage media, and the impact they, as well as certain historic limitations, have on how we utilize disks.
    [Show full text]