Messages in this thread | | | From | Shawn Leas <> | Subject | RE: Question on FFS support | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:35:35 -0500 |
| |
There was a NetApp dud here at the Oracle User's Group pitching there solutions. I asked regarding white papers on their underlying OS as well as their FS, and they said they would email me some links, but never did...
They had some interesting features such as snapshots, which basically preserves FS metadata at some point in time, and given the FS is a log structured one, the blocks pointed to by the old metadata never gets overwritten.
This thread has given me some insight into their stuff. Thanks dudes!
-Shawn
-----Original Message----- From: Theodore Y. Ts'o [mailto:tytso@mit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 5:06 PM To: Brian Grayson Cc: Anthony Barbachan; Alexander Viro; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Question on FFS support
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:24:25 -0500 From: Brian Grayson <bgrayson@ibmoto.com>
I don't know, but the original FreeBSD responder may have meant LFS, the log-structured filesystem, which the BSDs have recently revamped. It is a true journaling file system distinct from FFS/UFS, and not merely soft-updates on top of a traditional block-structured file system. With LFS, you always append on writes, rather than overwrite. Thus, writes are fast, and if the machine crashes, since the previous data has not been overwritten, you can recover quite quickly. Of course, with finite disks you need to do some garbage-collecting, but LFS does all of that for you, and also has some optimizations so that reads are still fast.
The latter has been the traditional failing of LFS filesystems over update-in-place filesystems (i.e., FFS, and ext2) --- because you never write over an existing disk block, files and directories tend to get scattered all over the disk. There are ways things can be improved (intelligent log cleaners, and huge amounts of memory to cache data so you don't have to go disk for reads in the first place), but it's very difficult to make a log structured filesystem work as well as an update-in-place filesystem.
There is a fairly widely held belief that LFS systems don't work well on smaller systems --- especially ones without a lot of memory --- because of the huge amounts of cache needed to make things reasonably fast. And there will be certain application access patterns which will be quite pessimal for LFS. There are systems where LFS works quite well, though. NetApp boxes use a log structured filesystem, for example. They've spent a lot of effort, using both hardware and software techniques, to make their boxes go *fast*.
- Ted
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |