Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Davide Frey, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Konstantinos Kloudas INRIA Rennes, France Plug.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Davide Frey, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Konstantinos Kloudas INRIA Rennes, France Plug."— Presentation transcript:

1 Davide Frey, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Konstantinos Kloudas INRIA Rennes, France Plug

2 Motivation Volume of data stored increases exponentially. Provided services are highly dependent on data. 2

3 Motivation Traditional solutions combine data in tarballs and store them on tape. – Pros: cost efficient. – Cons: low throughput. 3 TapeDisk Acquisition cost$407,000$1,620,000 Operational cost$205,000$573,000 Total cost$612,000$2,193,000 * Source:

4 Deduplication Store data only once and replace duplicates with references. 4

5 Deduplication Store data only once and replace duplicates with references. 5 file1

6 Deduplication file1 file2 6 Store data only once and replace duplicates with references.

7 Deduplication 7 file1 file2 Store data only once and replace duplicates with references.

8 Deduplication 8 file1 file2 Store data only once and replace duplicates with references.

9 Challenges Single-node deduplication systems. – Compact indexing structures. – Efficient duplicate detection. 9

10 Challenges Single-node deduplication systems. – Compact indexing structures. – Efficient duplicate detection. Cluster-based solutions. – Single-machine tradeoffs. – Deduplication vs Load balancing. 10 We focus on Cluster-based Deduplication Systems. Plug

11 Storage Nodes Coordinator Clients Example: Deduplication Vs Load Balancing A B C D A client wants to store a file. 11

12 Storage Nodes Coordinator Clients Example: Deduplication Vs Load Balancing A B C D The client sends the file to the Coordinator. 12

13 Storage Nodes Coordinator Clients Example: Deduplication Vs Load Balancing A10% B30% C60% D0% The Coordinator computes the overlap between the contents of and those of each Storage Node. 13

14 Storage Nodes Coordinator Clients Example: Deduplication Vs Load Balancing A10% B30% C60% D0% To maximize DEDUPLICATION, the new file should go to node C. 14

15 Storage Nodes Coordinator Clients Example: Deduplication Vs Load Balancing A10% B30% C60% D0% To achieve LOAD BALANCING, the new file should go to node D. 15

16 Goal: Scalable Cluster Deduplication. 16 Load Balancing. Minimize: Ideally, equal to 1. Load Balancing. Minimize: Ideally, equal to 1. Good Data Deduplication. Maximize: Ideally, deduplication of a single-node system. Good Data Deduplication. Maximize: Ideally, deduplication of a single-node system.

17 Goal: Scalable Cluster Deduplication. 17 Load Balancing. Minimize: Ideally, equal to 1. Load Balancing. Minimize: Ideally, equal to 1. Good Data Deduplication. Maximize: Ideally, deduplication of a single-node system. Good Data Deduplication. Maximize: Ideally, deduplication of a single-node system. Scalability. Minimize memory usage at Coordinator. Scalability. Minimize memory usage at Coordinator.

18 Goal: Scalable Cluster Deduplication. 18 Load Balancing. Minimize: Ideally, equal to 1. Load Balancing. Minimize: Ideally, equal to 1. Good Data Deduplication. Maximize: Ideally, deduplication of a single-node system. Good Data Deduplication. Maximize: Ideally, deduplication of a single-node system. Good Throughput. Minimize CPU/Memory usage at Coordinator. Good Throughput. Minimize CPU/Memory usage at Coordinator. Scalability. Minimize memory usage at Coordinator. Scalability. Minimize memory usage at Coordinator.

19 State-of-the-art Divided in stateless and stateful. Stateless : – Assign data to nodes regardless of previous assignment decisions. Stateful : – Keep state for each storage node and assign data to nodes based on their current state.

20 State-of-the-art : comparison MemoryCPUDeduplication Stateless Stateful

21 State-of-the-art : comparison MemoryCPUDeduplication Stateless Stateful Goal: Make stateful approaches viable

22 PRODUCK architecture Coordinator Storage Nodes Client Split the file in chunks of data. Store and retrieve data. Store the chunks. Provide directory services. Assign chunks to nodes. Keep the system load balanced. 22

23 Client: chunking Chunks: – use content-based chunking techniques. – basic deduplication unit. Super-chunks: – group of consecutive chunks. – basic routing and storage unit. 23

24 Client: chunking 24 Split the file in chunks

25 Client: chunking 25 Organize the chunks in super-chunks

26 Client: chunking 26

27 PRODUCK architecture Coordinator Storage Nodes Client Split the file in chunks of data. Store and retrieve data. Store the chunks. Provide directory services. Assign chunks to nodes. Keep the system load balanced. 27

28 Coordinator: goals Estimate the overlap between a super-chunk and the chunks of a given node. – Maximize deduplication. Equally distribute storage load among nodes. – Guarantee a load balanced system. 28

29 Coordinator: our contributions Novel chunk overlap estimation. – Based on probabilistic counting—PCSA [Flajolet et al. 1985, Michel et al. 2006]. – Never used before in storage systems. Novel load balancing mechanism. – Operating at chunk-level granularity. – Improving co-localization of duplicate chunks. 29

30 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Main observation : – Do not need the exact matches. – Need only an estimation of the size of the overlap. PCSA permits : – Compact set descriptors. – Accurate intersection estimation. – Computationally efficient. 30

31 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Chunk 5 Chunk 1 Chunk 2 Chunk 3 Chunk 4 Original Set of Chunks 31

32 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Chunk 5 Chunk 1 Chunk 2 Chunk 3 Chunk 4 hash() Original Set of Chunks 32

33 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Chunk 5 Chunk 1 Chunk 2 Chunk 3 Chunk Original Set of Chunks p(y) = min(bit(y, k)) BITMAP hash() 33

34 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Chunk 5 Chunk 1 Chunk 2 Chunk 3 Chunk 4 Original Set of Chunks hash() BITMAP p(y) = min(bit(y, k)) INTUITION P(bitmap[0] = 1) = 1/2 P(bitmap[1] = 1) = 1/4 P(bitmap[2] = 1) = 1/8 … INTUITION P(bitmap[0] = 1) = 1/2 P(bitmap[1] = 1) = 1/4 P(bitmap[2] = 1) = 1/8 …

35 Coordinator : Overlap Estimation Chunk 5 Chunk 1 Chunk 2 Chunk 3 Chunk l = 2 Original Set of Chunks hash() BITMAP p(y) = min(bit(y, k))

36 Coordinator : Overlap Estimation Chunk 5 Chunk 1 Chunk 2 Chunk 3 Chunk l = 2 sizeOf(A) = 2 2 / 0.77 = 5.19 Original Set of Chunks p(y) = min(bit(y, k)) BITMAP hash()

37 Coordinator : Overlap Estimation Intersection Cardinality Estimation ?

38 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Intersection Cardinality Estimation ?

39 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation Intersection Cardinality Estimation ? Union Cardinality Estimation ? BITMAP(A) BITMAP(B) BITMAP(A V B) BitwiseOR 39

40 Coordinator: Overlap Estimation 40 PCSA set cardinality estimation. Set intersection estimation. Selection of best storage node.

41 In Practice 41 Client creates the bitmap of each superchunck (8192 vectors, total size 64KB) – Trade-off between efficiency and error Coordinator stores only a bitmap for each Storage Node

42 Coordinator: our contributions Novel chunk overlap estimation. – Based on probabilistic counting—PCSA [Flajolet et al. 1985, Michel et al. 2006]. – Never used before in storage systems. Novel load balancing mechanism. – Operating at chunk-level granularity. – Improving co-localization of duplicate chunks. 42

43 Load Balancing 43 Existing solution: choose Storage Nodes that do not exceed average load by a percentage threshold.

44 Load Balancing Problems Too aggressive, especially when a few data are stored in the system. 44 Existing solution: choose Storage Nodes that do not exceed average load by a percentage threshold.

45 Bucket-based storage quota management. – Measure storage space in fixed-size buckets. – Coordinator grants buckets to nodes one by one. – No node can exceed the least loaded by more than a maximum allowed bucket difference. 45 Load Balancing: our solution

46 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket 46 Load Balancing: our solution

47 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket Can I get a new Bucket? 47 Load Balancing: our solution

48 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket Yes, you can. 48 Load Balancing: our solution

49 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket Yes, you can. 49 Load Balancing: our solution

50 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket 50 Load Balancing: our solution

51 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket 51 Load Balancing: our solution

52 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket Can I get a new Bucket? 52 Load Balancing: our solution

53 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket NO you cannot! 53 Load Balancing: our solution

54 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket Searching for the second biggest overlap. 54 Load Balancing: our solution

55 Bucket-based storage quota management. Bucket 55 Load Balancing: our solution

56 Contribution Summary Novel chunk overlap estimation. – Based on probabilistic counting—PCSA [Flajolet et al. 1985, Michel et al. 2006]. – Never used before in storage systems. Novel load balancing mechanism. – Operating at chunk-level granularity. – Improving co-localization of duplicate chunks. 56

57 Evaluation: Datasets 2 real world workloads: 2 competitors [Dong et al. 2011]: – Minhash – BloomFilter 57

58 Evaluation: Competitors MinHash : stateless – Use the minimum hash from a super-chunk as its fingerprint. – Assign super-chunks to bins using the mod(# bins) operator. – Initially assign bins to nodes randomly and re- assign bins to nodes when unbalanced. 58

59 Evaluation: Competitors BloomFilter : statefull – The Coordinator keeps a Bloom filter for each one of the Storage Nodes. – If a node deviates more than 5% from the average load, it is considered overloaded. 59

60 Evaluation: Metrics Deduplication: Load balancing: Overall:  ED and TD are normalized to the performance of a single- node system to ease comparison. Throughput : 60

61 Evaluation: Effective Deduplication WikipediaImages nodes :Wikipedia 7%Images 16% 64 nodes : Wikipedia 16%Images 21% 32 nodes :Wikipedia 7%Images 16% 64 nodes : Wikipedia 16%Images 21%

62 Evaluation: Throughput 62 WikipediaImages 32 nodes :Wikipedia 11XImages 13X 64 nodes :Wikipedia 16XImages 21X 32 nodes :Wikipedia 11XImages 13X 64 nodes :Wikipedia 16XImages 21X

63 Evaluation: Throughput 63 WikipediaImages Memory : 64KB for Produck 9,6bits/chunk or 168GB for 140TB/node Memory : 64KB for Produck 9,6bits/chunk or 168GB for 140TB/node 32 nodes :Wikipedia 11XImages 13X 64 nodes : Wikipedia 16XImages 21X 32 nodes :Wikipedia 11XImages 13X 64 nodes : Wikipedia 16XImages 21X

64 Evaluation: Load Balancing Load Balancing 64 WikipediaImages

65 To Take Away Lessons learned from cluster-based deduplication – Stateful: good deduplication but impractical – Stateless: practical but poorer deduplication Useful Concepts for SocioPlug – PCSA: Data placement – Load balancing: bucket based 65

66 66


Download ppt "Davide Frey, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Konstantinos Kloudas INRIA Rennes, France Plug."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google