Download Repairable File Service - Stony Brook University

Data Versioning Systems
Research Proficiency Exam
Ningning Zhu
Advisor Tzi-cker Chiueh
Computer Science Department
State University Of New York at Stony Brook
Feb 10, 2003
Definitions


Data Object
Granularity of Data Object



Version of a Data Object



file, tuple, database table, database
logical volume, database, block device
A consistent state, a snapshot, a point-in-time image
Data Repository
Version Repository
Why need data versioning?





Documentation Versioning Control
Human mistakes
Malicious attacks
Software failure
History Study
Data Versioning Vs. Other Techniques





Backup
Mirroring
Replication
Redundancy
Perpetual storage
Design Issues

Resource Consumption



Performance



Storage capacity, CPU
Storage bandwidth, network bandwidth
old versions, current object
Throughput, latency
Maintenance Effort
Design Options

Who perform ?


Where and what to save?



User, Application, file system, database system, object store, virtual disks,
block-device
Separate version repository?
Full image vs. delta
How?


Frequency
Scope
Data Versioning Techniques

Save

Represent

Extract
Save: naive approach (1)
Save: Split Mirror (2)
Save: copy-old-while-update-new (3)
Save: keep-old-and-create-new (4)
Represent (1)

Full image


Delta




Easy to extract, consume more resource
Reference direction
reference object
Differencing algorithm
Chain of delta and full image
Represent: Chain structure (2)

Forward delta


Forward delta with version jumping


V1, D(1,2), D(2,3), V4, (D4,5), D(5,6), V7
V1, D(1,2), D(1,3), V4, (D4,5), D(4,6), V7
Reverse delta

V1, D(3,2), D(4,3), V4, D(6,5), D(7,6), V7
Represent: differencing algorithm (3)

Insert/Delete (diff) vs. Insert/Copy (bdiff)

Rabin fingerprint

Given a sequence of bytes:
t1, t 2, t 3,... t
RF (t1, t 2, t 3,... t )  (t1 p   t 2 p  1   t  1 p  t ) mod M
RF (ti  1  t  i )  (( RF (ti  t  i  1)  ti  p  )  p  t  i )) mod M

SHA-1: Collision free hashing function
XDFS

Drawback of traditional version control


Slow extraction, fragmentation, lack of atomicity support
XDFS




A user-level file system with versioning support
Separate version labeling with delta compression
Effective delta chain
Built upon Berkeley DB
Log Structured File System-SpriteLFS


Access assumption: small write
Data Structure








Inode
Inode map
Indirect block
Segment summary
Segment usage table
Superblock
Checkpoint region
Directory change log
(fixed disk location)
(fixed disk location)
Research Data Versioning System

File System



Object-store



Self-Secure-Storage-System
Oceanstore
Database System


Elephant
Comprehensive Versioning File System
Postgres and Fastrek
Storage System

Petal and Frangipani
Elephant File System (1)

Retention Policy

Keep one

Keep all

Keep safe

Keep landmark (intelligently add landmark)
Elephant File System (2)

Metadata organization
S4: Self-Secure Storage System (1)




Object-store interface
Log everything
Audit log
Efficient metadata logging
S4: Metadata Inefficiency (2)
CVFS: Comprehensive Versioning (1)

Journal based logging vs. Multi-version B-tree
CVFS: Comprehensive Versioning (2)



Journal-based vs. Multi-version B-tree
Assumptions about metadata access
Optimizations:




Cleaner: pointers in version repository
Both forward delta and reverse delta
Checkpointing and clustering
Bounded old version access by forcing checkpoint
Oceanstore: decentralized storage



A global-scale persistent storage
A deep archival system
Data Entity is identified by



<A-GUID, V-GUID>
Internal data structure is similar to S4.
Use B+ tree for object block indexing
Postgres:a multi-version database(1)

Versioning support



“Save” of a version in the database context
Optimized towards “extract”
Database Structure and Operation




Tables made up of tuples
First and secondary indices
Transaction log: <TID, operation>
Update  Delete + Insert
Postgres: record structure (2)

Extra fields for versioning:






OID
Xmin
Tmin
Xmax
Tmax
PTR
:
:
:
:
:
:
record ID, shared by versions of this record
TID of the inserting transaction
Commit time of Xmin
TID of the deleting transaction
Commit time of Xmax
forward pointer from old  new
Postgres: Save
(3)
Postgres: Represent & Extract (4)



Full image + forward delta
SQL query with TIME parameter
Build indices using R-tree for ops:


Contained in , overlap with
Secondary indices

When a delta record is inserted, if secondary indices need to
be changed, an full image need to be constructed
Postgres: Frequency of extraction (5)

No archive


Light archive


Timestamp never filled in
Extract time from TIME meta table
Heavy archive


First use, extract time from TIME metadata, then fill the field
Later use, directly from data record
Postgres: Hardware Assumption (6)

Another level of archival storage


WORM (optical disks)
Optimizations:




Indexing
Accessing method
Query plan
Combine indexing at magnetic disks and archival storage
Fastrek: application of versioning



Built on top of Postgres
Tracking read operation
Tracking write operation



Tmin, Tmax
Data dependency analysis
Fast and intelligent repair
Petal and Frangipani

Petal:




a distributed storage supports virtual disk snapshot
<virtual disk id, off> -> <physical disk id, off>
<virtual disk id, epoch, off> -> <physical disk id, off>
Frangipani:



A distributed file system built on top of Petal
Versioning by creating virtual disks snapshot
Coarse granularity: mainly for back purpose
Commercial Data Versioning Systems



Network Appliance
IBM
EMC
Network Appliance: WAFL

Network Appliance



Automatic checkpointing
Utilize NVRAM:


fast recovery
Good performance:


Customized for NFS and RAID
update batching, least blocking upon versioning
Easy extraction:

.snapshot directory
WAFL: system layout
WAFL:Limited Versioning
Network Appliance: SnapMirror




Built upon WAFL
Synchronous Mirroring
Semi-synchronous Mirroring
Asynchronous Mirroring


15 minutes interval, save 50% of update
SnapMirror:


Get block information from blockmap
Schedule mirroring at block-device level
IBM (Flash Copy ESS)




A block-device mirroring system
Copy-old-while-update-new
Use ESS cache and fast write to mask
write latency
Use bitmap to keep track each block of
old version and new version
EMC (TimeFinder)

Split mirror Implementation
Proposal:

Non-point-in-time versioning


Operation-based journaling


What is the most valuable state?
Natural metadata journaling efficiency
Design




Transparent mirroring and versioning
Primary site non-journaling, mirror site journaling
against intrusion, mistake
Applied to network file server
Repairable File Service: architecture
Represent: operation-based


Delta: NFS packets
Journal: Reverse delta chain



No checkpointing overhead
A chain of 2 months will cost <$100
Efficiency metadata journaling


100-200 bytes for inode, directory update
One hash table entry for indirect block update
Save: a hybrid approach

Data block update


Copy-old-create-new
Metadata update:



Naïve:
Read old, write old, update new
Variation of Naïve: Guess old,write old, update-new
Variation of Naïve: Get old, write old, update-new
User Level Journaling File System
System Layout
Extract: intelligent and fast repair



Dependency logging
Dependency analysis
Fast Repair


Fast extract of most valuable state of a data system
Drawback:

Poor performance for other extract specification
Conclusion (1)

Hardware technology -> DV possible




Penalty of data loss -> DV a necessity



Capacity
Random access storage
CPU time
Data loss
System down time
DV technology:

Journaling, B+, differencing algorithm
Conclusion (2)




DV at application level
DV at file system/database level
DV at storage system/block device level
A combined and flexible solution to
satisfy all DV requirement at low cost.
Future Trend (1)



Comprehensive versioning
Perpetual versioning
High performance versioning


Intrusion oriented versioning



Comparable to non-versioning system
Testing new untrusted application
Reduce system maintenance cost
Semantic extraction
Future Trend (2)

In decentralized storage system,
integrate and separate DV with





Replication
Redundancy
Mirroring
Encryption
Avoid similar functionality being
implemented at by multiple modules