View
53
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Journaling vs Soft Updates: Asynchronous Metadata Protection in File Systems. Margo I. Seltzer, Harvard, Gregory R. Ganger CMU, M. Kirk McKusick , Keith A. Smith, Harvard, Craig A.N. Soules CMU, Christopher A. Stein, Harvard Presenters: Arjumand Younus and Muhammad Atif Qureshi. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Journaling vs Soft Updates: Asynchronous Metadata Protection in File Systems
Margo I. Seltzer, Harvard, Gregory R. Ganger CMU, M. Kirk McKusick, Keith A. Smith, Harvard, Craig A.N. Soules CMU, Christopher A. Stein, Harvard
Presenters: Arjumand Younus and Muhammad Atif Qureshi
2
Outline
• Introduction: The Problem• Solutions– Synchronous Writes– Soft Updates– Journaling
• Comparative Evaluation– Feature Comparison– Measurements
• Conclusion
3
Problem Statement
• File system meta-data update problem– Interdependencies must be cared for during disk
updates
4
Metadata Operations
• Metadata operations modify the structure of the file system– Creating, deleting or renaming files, directories or
special files• Data must be written to disk in such a way
that the file system can be recovered to a consistent state after a system crash
5
Deleting a File (1/3)
abc
def
ghi
i-node-1
i-node-2
i-node-3
Assume we want to delete file “def”
6
Deleting a File (2/3)
abc
def
ghi
i-node-1
i-node-3
?
Cannot delete i-node before directory entry “def”
7
Deleting a File (3/3)
• Correct sequence is1. Write to disk directory block containing deleted
directory entry “def”2. Write to disk i-node block containing deleted i-
node• Leaves the file system in a consistent state
8
Creating a File (1/3)
abc
ghi
i-node-1
i-node-3
Assume we want to create new file “tuv”
9
Creating a File (2/3)
abc
ghi
tuv
i-node-1
i-node-3
?Cannot write directory entry “tuv” before i-node
10
Creating a File (3/3)
• Correct sequence is1. Write to disk i-node block containing new i-node2. Write to disk directory block containing new
directory entry
• Leaves the file system in a consistent state
11
Approaches to Metadata Management
• Synchronous Writes– FFS
• Ordered Writes– Soft Updats
• Logged Writes– Journaling
12
• Synchronous Writes
• Soft Updates
• Journaling– LFFS-file– LFFS-wafs
13
Synchronous Writes
• Used by FFS to guarantee consistency of metadata:– All metadata updates are done through blocking
writes• Increases the cost of metadata updates• Can significantly impact the performance of
whole file system
14
Soft Updates
• Uses delayed writes (write back)• Maintain dependency information about
cached pieces of metadata:– This i-node must be updated before/after this
directory entry• Guarantees that metadata blocks are written
to disk in the required order
15
Problems in Soft Updates (1/2)
• Soft Updates guarantee that file system will recover into a consistent state but not necessarily the most recent one– Some updates could be lost
• Cyclical dependencies:– Same directory block contains entries to be
created and entries to be deleted– These entries point to i-nodes in the same block
16
Problems in Soft Updates (2/2)
i-node-2 def
NEW xyz
NEW i-node-3
--- ----------
Block A Block B
We want to delete file “def”and create new file “xyz”
Cannot write block A before block B:
• Block A contains a new directory entry pointing to block B
Cannot write block B before block A:
• Block A contains a deleted directory entry pointing to block B
17
Solution to Soft Update Problem (1/2)
• Roll back metadata in one of the blocks to an earlier, safe state
• (Safe state does not contain new directory entry)
Block A
def
18
Solution to Soft Update Problem (2/2)
• Write first block with metadata that were rolled back (block A’ of example)
• Write blocks that can be written after first block has been written (block B of example)
• Roll forward block that was rolled back• Write that block• Breaks the cyclical dependency but must now
write twice block A
19
Journaling• Logs metadata operations• Writes metadata in-place asynchronously• Write-ahead logging (WAL) protocol guarantees recoverability.• Journaling systems can provide
– same durability semantics as FFS if log is forced to disk after each meta-data operation
– the laxer semantics of Soft Updates if log writes are buffered until entire buffers are full
• Will discuss two implementations– LFFS-file– LFFS-wafs
20
LFFS-file
• Maintains a circular log in a pre-allocated file in the FFS (about 1% of file system size)
• Buffer header of each modified block in cache identifies the first and last log entries describing an update to the block
• LFFS-file maintains its log asynchronously– Maintains file system integrity, but does not
guarantee durability of updates
21
LFFS-wafs (1/2)
• Implements its log in an auxiliary file system:Write Ahead File System (WAFS)– Can be mounted and unmounted– Can append data– Can return data by sequential or keyed reads
• Same checkpointing scheme and write-ahead logging protocol as LFFS-file
22
LFFS-wafs (2/2)
• Major advantage of WAFS is additional flexibility:– Can put WAFS on separate disk drive to avoid I/O
contention– Can even put it in NVRAM
• LFS-wafs normally uses synchronous writes – Metadata operations are persistent upon return
from the system call– Same durability semantics as FFS
23
• Properties of Metadata Operations
• Feature Comparison
• Experimental Setup & Measurements
24
Properties of Metadata Operations
• Integrity– The file system is always recoverable
• Durability– Updates are persistent once the call returns
• Atomicity– No partial metadata operations are visible after
recovery
25
Feature Comparison
26
Experimental Setup• Software
– Modified FreeBSD kernel and 2 journaling file system implementations (LFFS-wafs, LFFS-file)
• Hardware– 500 MHz Xeon Pentium III– 512 MB RAM– 3 x 9GB 10,000 RPM Seagate Cheetahs
• Compared performances of – Standard FFS– FFS mounted with the async option– FFS mounted with Soft Updates– FFS augmented with a file log using asynchronous log writes– FFS augmented with a WAFS log using
• Synchronous /asynchronous log writes • WAFS log on same/different drive
Microbenchmark
27
28
Comments on Microbenchmark Results
• FFS-async performs best• Original FFS, LFFS-wafs-2sync and
LFFS-wafs-1sync perform worst– Synchronous log updates are costly
• LFFS-file outperforms LFFS-wafs-2async and LFFS-wafs-1async– LFFS-file uses bigger block clusters
for log writes• Additional Results
– Read/write performance identical for all systems– All async systems have similar create throughput– Soft updates has great delete performance due to its ability to do
background work
29
Macrobenchmarks
• SSH-build– Unpacks, configures and builds ssh
• NetNews– Simulates the work of a news server
• SDET– Emulates user interactive software development workload
• Postmark– Designed to model the workload seen by ISPs under heavy
load: combination of email, news and e-commerce transactions
30
SSH Benchmark
31
NetNews Benchmark
32
Conclusions
• Journaling alone is not sufficient to “solve” the meta-data update problem– Cannot realize its full potential when synchronous
semantics are required• When that condition is relaxed, journaling and
Soft Updates perform comparably in most cases
33
Problems• Only a single file system with a single write-ordering model and a single
approach to writing the journal was evaluated.• Under what circumstances will soft update perform better and where will
Journaling perform better were not close ended.• It looks more of survey paper than conclusive stance over issues at hands.• High performance applicants will find it too naive to accept as practioners
guide (Who will be its first implementer).• Work load taken were too sparse and were too high level to close end a
discussion in particular discipline and does not offer a final say.• Survey was good, but analysis lacked to comprehend a pin pointed viewpoint.• Performance over array (disks) must have appealed high performance
applicants, but paper does not provide any knowledge for such meaningful debate.
Recommended