Presentation on theme: "Distributed Filesystems: NFS and GFS Costin Raiciu Advanced Topics in Distributed Systems 18 th October, 2011 Slides courtesy of Brad Karp (UCL) and Robert."— Presentation transcript:
Distributed Filesystems: NFS and GFS Costin Raiciu Advanced Topics in Distributed Systems 18 th October, 2011 Slides courtesy of Brad Karp (UCL) and Robert Morris (MIT)
Distributed Filesystems Why might we need them? – Sharing data: many users read/write the same files – Files too big to store on a single machine – Better fault tolerance – via replication across machines – Better performance – if reads are serviced by many replicas
What defines a Distributed FS? Need some common namespace (dir/open/close) – Metadata which files are in this directory? where are the contents of this file stored? – This is typically small in size – We care a lot about consistency Need a way to access data (read/write) – There will be lots of data
How do we design a distributed filesystem? Should we use a centralized server? – Easier to manage – All clients connect to it – No fault tolerance (but can be added) Or should we use many servers? Who holds metadata? Who holds data?
Are we allowed to change apps? It influences the design quite a bit! Apps unchanged – Great deployability – Bound to Unix local filesystem semantics Apps changed – We can do whatever we want – But optimal design depends on app!
Network File System
7 NFS Is Relevant Original paper from 1985 Very successful, still widely used today Early result; much subsequent research in networked filesystems “fixing shortcomings of NFS”
8 Why Did They Build NFS? Sharing data: many users reading/writing same files but running on separate machines Manageability: ease of backing up one server Disks may be expensive (true when NFS built; no longer true) – Diskless workstations
9 Goals for NFS Easily deployed – Easy to add to existing UNIX systems Work with existing, unmodified apps: – Same semantics as local UNIX filesystem Compatible with non-UNIX OSes – Wire protocol cannot be too UNIX-specific Efficient “enough” – Needn’t offer same performance as local UNIX filesystem
10 NFS Architecture Server (w/disk) Clients LAN App1App2 User Kernel Filesystem syscalls RPCs
11 Simple Example: Reading a File What RPCs would we expect for: fd = open(“f”, 0); read(fd, buf, 8192); close(fd);
12 Simple Example: NFS RPCs for Reading a File Where are RPCs for close()?
NFS Server is stateless Simplifies crash recovery Allows it to scale to many concurrent clients – No need to remember them! NFS runs mainly on top of UDP
14 File Handle: Function and Contents 32-byte name, opaque to client Identifies object on remote server Must be included in all NFS RPCs File handle contains: – filesystem ID – i-number (essentially, physical block ID on disk) – generation number
15 Generation Number: Motivation Client 1 opens file Client 2 opens same file Client 1 deletes the file, creates new one UNIX local filesystem semantics: – Client 2 (App 2) sees old file In NFS, suppose server re-uses i-node – Same i-number for new file as old – RPCs from client 2 refer to new file’s i-number – Client 2 sees new file!
16 Generation Number: Solution Each time server frees i-node, increments its generation number – Client 2’s RPCs now use old file handle – Server can distinguish requests for old vs. new file Semantics still not same as local UNIX fs! – Apps 1 and 2 sharing local fs: client 2 will see old file – Clients 1 and 2 on different workstations sharing NFS fs: client 2 gets error “stale file handle” Trade precise UNIX fs semantics for simplicity
17 Why i-numbers, not Filenames? Local UNIX fs: client 1 reads dir2/f NFS with pathnames: client 1 reads dir1/f Concurrent access by clients can change object referred to by filename – Why not a problem in local UNIX fs? i-number refers to actual object, not filename
18 Where Does Client Learn File Handles? Before READ, client obtains file handle using LOOKUP or CREATE Client stores returned file handle in vnode Client’s file descriptor refers to vnode Where does client get very first file handle?
19 NFS Implementation Layering Why not just send syscalls over wire? UNIX semantics defined in terms of files, not just filenames: file’s identity is i-number on disk Even after rename, all these refer to same object as before: – File descriptor – Home directory – Cache contents vnode’s purpose: remember file handles!
21 Server Crashes and Robustness Suppose server crashes and reboots Will client requests still work? – Will client’s file handles still make sense? – Yes! File handle is disk address of i-node What if server crashes just after client sends an RPC? – Before server replies: client doesn’t get reply, retries What if server crashes just after replying to WRITE RPC?
22 WRITE RPCs and Crash Robustness What must server do to ensure correct behavior when crash after WRITE from client? Client’s data safe on disk i-node with new block number and new length safe on disk Indirect block safe on disk Three writes, three seeks: 45 ms 22 WRITEs/s, so 180 KB/s
23 WRITEs and Throughput Design for higher write throughput: – Client writes entire file sequentially at Ethernet speed (few MB/s) – Update inode, &c. afterwards Why doesn’t NFS use this approach? – What happens if server crashes and reboots? – Does client believe write completed? Improved in NFSv3: WRITEs async, COMMIT on close()
24 Client Caches in NFS Server caches disk blocks Client caches file content blocks, some clean, some dirty Client caches file attributes Client caches name-to-file-handle mappings Client caches directory contents General concern: what if client A caches data, but client B changes it?
25 Multi-Client Consistency Real-world examples of data cached on one host, changed on another: – Save in emacs on one host, “make” on other host – “make” on one host, run program on other host (No problem if users all run on one workstation, or don’t share files)
26 Consistency Protocol: First Try On every read(), client asks server whether file has changed – if not, use cached data for file – if so, issue READ RPCs to get fresh data from server Is this protocol sufficient to make each read() see latest write()? What’s effect on performance? Do we need such strong consistency?
27 Compromise: Close-to-Open Consistency Implemented by most NFS clients Contract: – if client A write()s a file, then close()s it, – then client B open()s the file, and read()s it, – client B’s reads will reflect client A’s writes Benefit: clients need only contact server during open() and close()—not on every read() and write()
28 Compromise: Close-to-Open Consistency Fixes “emacs save, then make” example… …so long as user waits until emacs says it’s done saving file!
29 Close-to-Open Implementation FreeBSD UNIX client (not part of protocol spec): – Client keeps file mtime and size for each cached file block – close() starts WRITEs for all file’s dirty blocks – close() waits for all of server’s replies to those WRITEs – open() always sends GETATTR to check file’s mtime and size, caches file attributes – read() uses cached blocks only if mtime/length have not changed – client checks cached directory contents with GETATTR and ctime
30 Name Caching in Practice Name-to-file-handle cache not always checked for consistency on each LOOKUP – If file deleted, may get “stale file handle” error from server – If file renamed and new file created with same name, may even get wrong file’s contents
31 NFS: Secure? What prevents unauthorized users from issuing RPCs to an NFS server? – e.g., remove files, overwrite data, &c. What prevents unauthorized users from forging NFS replies to an NFS client? – e.g., return data other than on real server IP-address-based authentication of mount requests weak at best; no auth of server to client Security not a first-order goal in original NFS
32 Limitations of NFS Security: what if untrusted users can be root on client machines? Scalability: how many clients can share one server? – Writes always go through to server – Some writes are to “private,” unshared files that are deleted soon after creation Can you run NFS on a large, complex network? – Effects of latency? Packet loss? Bottlenecks? Despite its limitations, NFS a huge success: Simple enough to build for many OSes Correct enough and performs well enough to be practically useful in deployment
GFS: The Google File System
34 Motivating Application: Google Crawl the whole web Store it all on “one big disk” Process users’ searches on “one big CPU” More storage, CPU required than one PC can offer Custom parallel supercomputer: expensive (so much so, not really available today)
35 Cluster of PCs as Supercomputer Lots of cheap PCs, each with disk and CPU – High aggregate storage capacity – Spread search processing across many CPUs How to share data among PCs? NFS: share fs from one server, many clients – Goal: mimic original UNIX local fs semantics – Compromise: close-to-open consistency (performance) – Fault tolerance? Ivy: shared virtual memory (we will discuss later) – Fine-grained, relatively strong consistency at load/store level – Fault tolerance? GFS: File system for sharing data on clusters, designed with Google’s application workload specifically in mind
36 Google Platform Characteristics 100s to 1000s of PCs in cluster Cheap, commodity parts in PCs Many modes of failure for each PC: – App bugs, OS bugs – Human error – Disk failure, memory failure, net failure, power supply failure – Connector failure Monitoring, fault tolerance, auto-recovery essential
37 Google File System: Design Criteria Detect, tolerate, recover from failures automatically Large files, >= 100 MB in size Large, streaming reads (>= 1 MB in size) – Read once Large, sequential writes that append – Write once Concurrent appends by multiple clients (e.g., producer-consumer queues) – Want atomicity for appends without synchronization overhead among clients
38 GFS: Architecture One master server (state replicated on backups) Many chunk servers (100s – 1000s) – Spread across racks; intra-rack b/w greater than inter-rack – Chunk: 64 MB portion of file, identified by 64-bit, globally unique ID Many clients accessing same and different files stored on same cluster
39 GFS: Architecture (2)
40 Master Server Holds all metadata: – Namespace (directory hierarchy) – Access control information (per-file) – Mapping from files to chunks – Current locations of chunks (chunkservers) Manages chunk leases to chunkservers Garbage collects orphaned chunks Migrates chunks between chunkservers Holds all metadata in RAM; very fast operations on file system metadata
41 Chunkserver Stores 64 MB file chunks on local disk using standard Linux filesystem, each with version number and checksum Read/write requests specify chunk handle and byte range Chunks replicated on configurable number of chunkservers (default: 3) No caching of file data (beyond standard Linux buffer cache)
42 Client Issues control (metadata) requests to master server Issues data requests directly to chunkservers Caches metadata Does no caching of data – No consistency difficulties among clients – Streaming reads (read once) and append writes (write once) don’t benefit much from caching at client
43 Client API Is GFS a filesystem in traditional sense? – Implemented in kernel, under vnode layer? – Mimics UNIX semantics? No; a library apps can link in for storage access API: – open, delete, read, write (as expected) – snapshot: quickly create copy of file – append: at least once, possibly with gaps and/or inconsistencies among clients
44 Client Read Client sends master: – read(file name, chunk index) Master’s reply: – chunk ID, chunk version number, locations of replicas Client sends “closest” chunkserver w/replica: – read(chunk ID, byte range) – “Closest” determined by IP address on simple rack-based network topology Chunkserver replies with data
45 Client Write Some chunkserver is primary for each chunk – Master grants lease to primary (typically for 60 sec.) – Leases renewed using periodic heartbeat messages between master and chunkservers Client asks server for primary and secondary replicas for each chunk Client sends data to replicas in daisy chain – Pipelined: each replica forwards as it receives – Takes advantage of full-duplex Ethernet links
46 Client Write (2) All replicas acknowledge data write to client Client sends write request to primary Primary assigns serial number to write request, providing ordering Primary forwards write request with same serial number to secondaries Secondaries all reply to primary after completing write Primary replies to client
47 Client Write (3)
48 Client Record Append Google uses large files as queues between multiple producers and consumers Same control flow as for writes, except… Client pushes data to replicas of last chunk of file Client sends request to primary Common case: request fits in current last chunk: – Primary appends data to own replica – Primary tells secondaries to do same at same byte offset in theirs – Primary replies with success to client
49 Client Record Append (2) When data won’t fit in last chunk: – Primary fills current chunk with padding – Primary instructs other replicas to do same – Primary replies to client, “retry on next chunk” If record append fails at any replica, client retries operation – So replicas of same chunk may contain different data— even duplicates of all or part of record data What guarantee does GFS provide on success? – Data written at least once in atomic unit
50 GFS: Consistency Model Changes to namespace (i.e., metadata) are atomic – Done by single master server! – Master uses log to define global total order of namespace- changing operations Data changes more complicated Consistent: file region all clients see as same, regardless of replicas they read from Defined: after data mutation, file region that is consistent, and all clients see that entire mutation
51 GFS: Data Mutation Consistency Record append completes at least once, at offset of GFS’ choosing Apps must cope with Record Append semantics WriteRecord Append serial success defined defined interspersed with inconsistent concurrent successes consistent but undefined failureinconsistent
52 Applications and Record Append Semantics Applications should include checksums in records they write using Record Append – Reader can identify padding / record fragments using checksums If application cannot tolerate duplicated records, should include unique ID in record – Reader can use unique IDs to filter duplicates
53 Logging at Master Master has all metadata information – Lose it, and you’ve lost the filesystem! Master logs all client requests to disk sequentially Replicates log entries to remote backup servers Only replies to client after log entries safe on disk on self and backups!
54 Chunk Leases and Version Numbers If no outstanding lease when client requests write, master grants new one Chunks have version numbers – Stored on disk at master and chunkservers – Each time master grants new lease, increments version, informs all replicas Master can revoke leases – e.g., when client requests rename or snapshot of file
55 What If the Master Reboots? Replays log from disk – Recovers namespace (directory) information – Recovers file-to-chunk-ID mapping Asks chunkservers which chunks they hold – Recovers chunk-ID-to-chunkserver mapping If chunk server has older chunk, it’s stale – Chunk server down at lease renewal If chunk server has newer chunk, adopt its version number – Master may have failed while granting lease
56 What if Chunkserver Fails? Master notices missing heartbeats Master decrements count of replicas for all chunks on dead chunkserver Master re-replicates chunks missing replicas in background – Highest priority for chunks missing greatest number of replicas
57 File Deletion When client deletes file: – Master records deletion in its log – File renamed to hidden name including deletion timestamp Master scans file namespace in background: – Removes files with such names if deleted for longer than 3 days (configurable) – In-memory metadata erased Master scans chunk namespace in background: – Removes unreferenced chunks from chunkservers
What About Small Files? Most files stored in GFS are multi-GB; a few are shorter Instructive case: storing a short executable in GFS, executing on many clients simultaneously – 3 chunkservers storing executable overwhelmed by many clients’ concurrent requests – App-specific fix: replicate such files on more chunkservers; stagger app start times 58
Write Performance (Distinct Files) 59
Record Append Performance (Same File) 60
61 GFS: Summary Success: used actively by Google to support search service and other applications – Availability and recoverability on cheap hardware – High throughput by decoupling control and data – Supports massive data sets and concurrent appends Semantics not transparent to apps – Must verify file contents to avoid inconsistent regions, repeated appends (at-least-once semantics) Performance not good for all apps – Assumes read-once, write-once workload (no client caching!)