[Lustre-devel] Integrity and corruption - can file systems be scalable?

Dmitry Zogin dmitry.zoguine at oracle.com
Sun Jul 4 20:53:29 PDT 2010

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:37:52PM -0400, Dmitry Zogin wrote:
>> Well, the hash trees certainly help to achieve data integrity, but
>> at the performance cost.
> Merkle hash trees cost more CPU cycles, not more I/O.  Indeed, they
> result in _less_ I/O in the case of RAID-Zn because there's no need to
> read the parity unless the checksum doesn't match.  Also, how much CPU
> depends on the hash function.  And HW could help if this became enough
> of a problem for us.
>> Eventually, the file system becomes fragmented, and moving the data
>> around implies more random seeks with Merkle hash trees.
> Yes, fragmentation is a problem for COW, but that has nothing to do with
> Merkle trees.  But practically every modern filesystem coalesces writes
> into contiguous writes on disk to reach streaming write perfmormance,
> and that, like COW, results in filesystem fragmentation.
What I really mean is the defragmentation issue and not the 
fragmentation itself. All file systems becomes fragmented, as it is 
unavoidable. But the defragmentation of the file system using hash trees 
really becomes a problem.
> (Of course, you needn't get fragmentation if you never delete or over
> write files.  You'll get some fragmentation of meta-data, but that's
> much easier to garbage collect since meta-data will amount to much less
> on disk than data.)
Well, that is really never happens, unless the file system is read-only. 
The files are deleted and created all the time.
> Everything we do involves trade-offs.
Yes, but if the performance drop becomes unacceptable, any gain in the 
integrity is miserable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20100704/1073278d/attachment.htm>

More information about the lustre-devel mailing list