1. Lock Services in Distributed File Systems Shaan Mahbubani Anshuman Gupta Ravi Vijay Anup Tapadia UCSD CSE 221 Operating Systems - Winter 07

2. Distributed File System Lock Service - Synchronization - Consistency - Access control - Shared access

3. Farsite - Overview Goals: Meta-data partitioning Meta-data partitioning Namespace consistency Namespace consistency Scalable ScalableDesign: Recursive path leases Recursive path leases File-field leases File-field leases Disjunctive leases Disjunctive leases

4. Chubby - Overview Goals: Coarse-grained synchronization Coarse-grained synchronization Primary election Primary electionDesign: High capacity High capacity Server, client library Server, client library Sessions, events, client caching Sessions, events, client caching

5. Analysis - Farsite Fully functional rename Identifier based partitioning Fine grained synchronization: leases Logical atomicity Optimizations: Recursive leases Lazy updates No fault recovery

6. Analysis - Chubby Low volume storage Flat access control lists Lock service in lieu of consensus service File handles and advisory locks Event notification service KeepAlive piggybacking Client side caching

7. Comparison FarsiteChubby Meta-data distribution DynamicCentralized Partitioning File ID None Rename Fully functional Not across dir Update policy Operation replay Update as deltas

8. More Comparison FarsiteChubby LockingMandatoryAdvisory Load Balancing DelegationNone Fault Recovery NoneReconstruction Bandwidth utilization LowHigh

9. Even More Comparison ChubbyFarsiteNFSAFS Meta-Datapartitioning File ID Pathname Full rename Yes AccessControlFlatHierarchicalHierarchicalHierarchical

10. Questions Farsite Farsite Scalability Scalability Lease overhead penalty Lease overhead penalty Network robustness Network robustness Effect of malicious machines Effect of malicious machines Time to recovery Time to recovery Chubby Chubby API problems API problems Throughput bottlenecks due to keepalives Throughput bottlenecks due to keepalives System capacity System capacity

11. Conclusion Farsite locking Farsite locking Distributed directory service avoids hotspots Distributed directory service avoids hotspots Fine grained locking avoids false sharing Fine grained locking avoids false sharing No fault tolerance No fault tolerance Chubby locking Chubby locking Lock service is better than consensus service Coarse grain locking more useful Coarse grain locking more useful More reliable across failovers More reliable across failovers

12. Thank You ! Questions ?