Google File Systems


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • fast recovery and replicationno distinguish between normal and abnormal terminationshadows, not mirrors, in that they may lag the primary slightly
  • impractical to detect corruption by comparing replicas across chunkserverswrite overwrites an existing range ?? Compare chsum of 1st and last blocks
  • helped immeasurably in problem isolation, debugging, and performance analysis with minimal costchunkservers going up and downRPC logs include the exact requests and responses sent on the wire
  • N clients append to a single file
  • Google File Systems

    1. 1. The Google File SystemPublished By:Sanjay Ghemawat,Howard Gobioff,Shun-Tak LeungGoogle Presented By: Manoj Samaraweera (138231B) Azeem Mumtaz (138218R) University of Moratuwa
    2. 2. Contents• Distributed File Systems• Introducing Google File System• Design Overview• System Interaction• Master Operation• Fault Tolerance and Diagnosis• Measurements and Benchmarks• Experience• Related Works• Conclusion• Reference
    3. 3. Distributed File Systems• Enables programs to store and access remote files exactly as they do local ones• New modes of data organization on disk or across multiple servers• Goals ▫ Performance ▫ Scalability ▫ Reliability ▫ Availability
    4. 4. Introducing Google File System• Growing demand for Google data processing• Properties ▫ A scalable distributed file system ▫ For large distributed data intensive applications ▫ Fault tolerance ▫ Inexpensive commodity hardware ▫ High aggregated performance• Design is driven by observation of workload and technological environment
    5. 5. Design Assumptions• Component failures are the norm ▫ Commodity Hardware• Files are huge by traditional standard ▫ Multi-GB files ▫ Small files also must be supported,  Not optimized• Read Workloads ▫ Large streaming reads ▫ Small random reads• Write Workloads ▫ Large, sequential writes that append data to file• Multiple clients concurrently append to one file ▫ Consistency Semantics ▫ Files are used as producer-consumer queues or many way merging• High sustained bandwidth is more important than low latency
    6. 6. Design Interface• Typical File System Interface• Hierarchical Directory Organization• Files are identified as pathnames• Operations ▫ Create, delete, open, close, read, write
    7. 7. Architecture (1/2)• Files are divided into chunks• Fixed-size chunks (64MB)• Unique 64-bit chunk handles ▫ Immutable and globally unique• Chunks as Linux files• Replicated over chunkservers, called replicas ▫ 3 replicas by default ▫ Different replication for different region of file namespace• Single master• Multiple chunkservers ▫ Grouped into Racks ▫ Connected through switches• Multiple clients• Master/chunkserver coordination ▫ HeartBeat Messages
    8. 8. Architecture (2/2)
    9. 9. Single Master• Maintains Metadata• Controls System Wide Activities ▫ Chunk lease management ▫ Garbage collection ▫ Chunk migration ▫ Replication
    10. 10. Chunk Size (1/2)• 64 MB• Stored as plain Linux file on a chunkserver• Advantages ▫ Reduces client’s interaction with single master ▫ Clients most likely to perform many operations on a large chunk  Reduce network overhead by keeping a persistent TCP connection with the chunkserver ▫ Reduces the size of the metadata  Keep metadata in memory ▫ Lazy Space Allocation
    11. 11. Chunk Size (1/2)• Disadvantages ▫ Small files consisting of small chunks may become hot spots ▫ Solutions  Higher replication factor  Stagger application start time  Allow clients to read from other clients
    12. 12. Metadata (1/5)• 3 Major Types ▫ The file and chunk namespace ▫ File-to-chunk mappings ▫ The location of each chunk replicas• Namespaces and mappings ▫ Persisted by logging mutation to an operation log stored on master ▫ Operation log is replicated
    13. 13. Metadata (2/5)• Metadata are stored in the memory ▫ Improves the performance master ▫ Easier to scan the entire state of metadata periodically  Chunk garbage collection  Re-replication in the presence of chunkserver failure  Chunk migration to balance load and disk space• 64 bytes of metadata for 64 MB chunk• File namespace data requires < 64 bytes per file ▫ Prefix compression
    14. 14. Metadata (3/5)• Chunk location information ▫ Polled at master startup  Chunkservers join and leave the cluster ▫ Keeps up-to-date with chunkserver with HeartBeat messages
    15. 15. Metadata (4/5)• Operation Logs ▫ Historical record of critical metadata changes ▫ Logical timeline that defines the order of concurrent operations ▫ Not visible to client  Until it is replicated and flushed the logs to the disk ▫ Flushing and replication in batch  Reduces impact on system throughput
    16. 16. Metadata (5/5)• Operation Logs ▫ By replaying operation logs master recover its file system state ▫ Checkpoints  To avoid the growth of the operation logs beyond the threshold  avoids interfering other mutations by working in a separate thread ▫ Compact B-tree like structure  Directly mapped into the memory and used for namespace lookup  No extra parsing
    17. 17. Consistency Model (1/3)• Guarantees by GFS ▫ File namespace mutations (i.e. File Creation) are atomic  Namespace management and locking guarantees atomicity and correctness  The master’s operation log ▫ After a sequence of successful mutations, the mutated file is guaranteed to be defined and contain the data written by the last mutation. This is obtained by  Applying the same mutation in order to all replicas  Using chunk version numbers to detect stale replica
    18. 18. Consistency Model (2/3)• Relaxed consistency model• Two types of mutations ▫ Writes  Cause data to be written at an application-specified file offset ▫ Record Appends  Cause data to be appended atomically at least once  Offset chosen by GFS, not by the client• States of a file region after a mutation ▫ Consistent  All clients see the same data, regardless which replicas they read from ▫ Inconsistent  Clients see different data at different times ▫ Defined  consistent and all clients see what the mutation writes in its entirety ▫ Undefined  consistent but it may not reflect what any mutation has written
    19. 19. Consistency Model (3/3)• Implication for Applications ▫ Relying on appends rather on overwrites ▫ Checkpointing  to verify how much data has been successfully written ▫ Writing self-validating records  Checksums to detect and remove padding ▫ Writing Self-identifying records  Unique Identifiers to identify and discard duplicates
    20. 20. Lease & Mutation Order• Master uses leases to maintain a consistent mutation order among replicas• Primary is the chunkserver who is granted a chunk lease ▫ Master delegates the authority of mutation ▫ All others are secondary replicas• Primary defines a mutation order between mutations ▫ Secondary replicas follows this order
    21. 21. Writes (1/7) • Step 1 ▫ Which chunkserver holds the current lease for the chunk? ▫ The location of secondary replicas
    22. 22. Writes (2/7) • Step 2 ▫ Identities of primary and secondary replicas ▫ Client cache this data for future mutation, until  Primary is unreachable  Primary no longer holds the lease
    23. 23. Writes (3/7) • Step 3 ▫ Client pushes the data to all replicas ▫ Chunkserver stores the data in an internal LRU buffer cache
    24. 24. Writes (4/7) • Step 4 ▫ Client sends a write request to the primary ▫ Primary assigns a consecutive serial numbers to mutations  Serialization ▫ Primary applies mutations to its own state
    25. 25. Writes (5/7) • Step 5 ▫ Forward the writes to all secondary replicas ▫ Follows the mutation order
    26. 26. Writes (6/7) • Step 6 ▫ Secondary replicas inform primary after completing the mutation
    27. 27. Writes (7/7) • Step 7 ▫ Primary replies to the client ▫ Retries from step 3 to 7 in case of errors
    28. 28. Data Flow (1/2)• Decoupled control flow and data flow• Data is pushed linearly along a chain of chunkservers in a pipelined fashion ▫ Utilize inbound bandwidth• Distance is accurately estimated from IP addresses• Minimize latency by pipelining the data transmission over TCP
    29. 29. Data Flow (2/2)• Ideal elapsed time for transmitting B bytes to R replicas:  T – Network Throughput  L – Latency between 2 machines• At Google:    T = 100 Mbps L <= 1 ms 1000 replicas Β/Τ RL  1 MB distributed in 80 ms
    30. 30. Record Append• In traditional writes ▫ Clients specifies offset where the data to be written ▫ Concurrent write to the same region is not serialized• In record append ▫ Client specifies only the data ▫ Similar to writes ▫ GFS appends data to the file at least once atomically  The chunk is padded if appending the record exceeds the maximum size  If a record append fails at any replica, the client retries the operation - record duplicates  File region may be defined but inconsistent
    31. 31. Snapshot (1/2)• Goals ▫ To quickly create branch copies of huge data sets ▫ To easily checkpoint the current state• Copy-on-write technique ▫ Master receive snapshot request, ▫ Revokes outstanding leases on chunks in the file ▫ Master logs the operation to the disk ▫ Applies this log to its in-memory state by duplicating the metadata for the source file or directory tree ▫ New snapshot file
    32. 32. Snapshot (2/2)• After the snapshot operation ▫ Clients sends a request to master to find the current lease holder of a “chunk C” ▫ Reference count for chunk C is > 1 ▫ Master pick a new chunk handle C ▫ Master asks chunkserver to create a new chunk C ▫ Master grants one of the replicas a lease on the new chunk C and replies to the client
    33. 33. Content • Distributed File Systems • Introducing Google File System • Design Overview • System Interaction • Master Operation • Fault Tolerance and Diagnosis • Measurements and Benchmarks • Experience • Related Works • Conclusion • Reference
    34. 34. Master Operation• Namespace Management and Locking• Replica Placement• Creation, Re-replication, Rebalancing• Garbage Collection• Stale Replica Detection
    35. 35. Namespace Management and Locking• Each master operation acquires a set of locks before it runs• Creating /home/user/foo while /home/user is snapshotted to /save/user
    36. 36. Replica Placement• Chunk replica placement policy serves two purposes: ▫ Maximize data reliability and availability. ▫ Maximize network bandwidth utilization
    37. 37. Creation, Re-replication, Rebalancing• Creation ▫ Want to place new replicas on chunkservers with below-average disk space utilization ▫ Limit the number of “recent” creations on each chunkserver ▫ Spread replicas of a chunk across racks.• Re-replication ▫ As soon as # of replicas go below user specified goal• Rebalancing ▫ Moves replicas for better disk space and load balancing
    38. 38. Garbage Collection• Mechanism ▫ Master logs the deletion immediately. ▫ File is just renamed to a hidden name. ▫ Removes any such hidden files if they have existed for more than three days. ▫ In a regular scan of the chunk namespace, master identifies orphaned chunks and erases the metadata for those chunks.
    39. 39. Stale Replica Detection• Chunk version number to distinguish between up-to-date and stale replicas.• Master removes stale replicas in its regular garbage collection.
    40. 40. Fault Tolerance and Diagnosis• High Availability ▫ Fast Recovery  Master and the chunkserver are designed to restore their state and start in seconds. ▫ Chunk Replication  master clones existing replicas as needed to keep each chunk fully replicated ▫ Master Replication  The master state is replicated for reliability  Operation log and checkpoints are replicated on multiple machines  “Shadow master” read-only access to the FS even when the primary master is down
    41. 41. Fault Tolerance and Diagnosis (2)• Data Integrity ▫ Each chunkserver uses checksumming to detect corruption of stored data. ▫ Chunk is broken up into 64 KB blocks. Each has a corresponding 32 bit checksum ▫ Checksum computation is heavily optimized for writes that append to the end of a chunk
    42. 42. Fault Tolerance and Diagnosis (3)• Diagnostic Tools ▫ Extensive and detailed diagnostic logging for in problem isolation, debugging, and performance analysis ▫ GFS servers generate diagnostic logs that record many significant events and all RPC requests and replies
    43. 43. Measurements and BenchmarksMicro-benchmarks GFS cluster consisting of one master, two master replicas, 16chunkservers, and 16 clients
    44. 44. Measurements and Benchmarks (2)• Real World Clusters • Cluster A is used regularly for research and development • Cluster B is primarily used for production data processing
    45. 45. Measurements and Benchmarks (3)
    46. 46. Experience• Biggest problems were disk and Linux related. ▫ Many of disks claimed to the Linux driver that they supported a range of IDE protocol versions but in fact responded reliably only to the more recent ones. ▫ Despite occasional problems, the availability of Linux code has helped to explore and understand system behavior.
    47. 47. Related Works (1/3)• Both GFS & AFS provides a location independent namespace ▫ data to be moved transparently for load balance ▫ fault tolerance• Unlike AFS, GFS spreads a file’s data across storage servers in a way more akin to xFS and Swift in order to deliver aggregate performance and increased fault tolerance• GFS currently uses replication for redundancy and consumes more raw storage than xFS or Swift.
    48. 48. Related Works (2/3)• In contrast to systems like AFS, xFS, Frangipani, and Intermezzo, GFS does not provide any caching below the file system interface.• GFS uses a centralized approach in order to simplify the design, increase its reliability, and gain flexibility ▫ unlike Frangipani, xFS, Minnesota’s GFS and GPFS ▫ Makes it easier to implement sophisticated chunk placement and replication policies since the master already has most of the relevant information and controls how it changes.
    49. 49. Related Works (3/3)• GFS delivers aggregated performance by focusing on the needs of our applications rather than building a POSIX-compliant file system, unlike in Lustre• NASD architecture is based on network-attached disk drives, similarly GFS uses commodity machines as chunkservers• GFS chunkservers use lazily allocated fixed-size chunks, whereas NASD uses variable-length objects• The producer-consumer queues enabled by atomic record appends address a similar problem as the distributed queues in River ▫ River uses memory-based queues distributed across machines
    50. 50. Conclusion• GFS demonstrates the qualities essential for supporting large-scale data processing workloads on commodity hardware.• Provides fault tolerance by constant monitoring, replicating crucial data, and fast and automatic recovery• Delivers high aggregate throughput to many concurrent readers and writers performing a variety of tasks
    51. 51. Reference• Ghemawat. S., Gobioff. H., Leung. S., 2003. The Google file system. In Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles (SOSP 03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 29-43.• Coulouris. G., Dollimore. J., Kindberg. T. 2005. Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design (4th Edition). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
    52. 52. Thank You