OceanStore & GPFS: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
=XUFS= | =XUFS= | ||
Designed | User-space implementation | ||
Designed to be simple | |||
Very generic |
Revision as of 20:46, 25 February 2008
Readings
John Kubiatowicz et al., "OceanStore: An Architecture for Global-Scale Persistent Storage" (2000)
Sean Rhea et al., "Pond: the OceanStore Prototype" (2003)
Questions
Is it worth it??
Ocean Store
Pros -Only trust required is own box -Data is highly durable due to file versioning -Information divorced from location --So long as you can reliably obtain information, it doesn't matter where it is located -Applicable to many data storage situations, not for a specific case -Routing is decentralized -2/3 of network is up? All is available
Cons -Very expensive to computer cryptography (slow generation of keys) -Utility models don't make economic sense, people prefer not to pay for access to their data
Pond
Example of oceanstore
GPFS
Distributed local OS designed for clusters Max size of 4096TB Pros -Massively parallel - data is striped across many many disks --Therefor read/write is very fast -Option of redundancy -Locking mechanism --Two options ---Data shipping
Distributed
First client to request access to file receives token
Other clients must request the current owner of the token
The current owner of the file grants portional access to their file (breaks token and gives portion access)
---Centralized locking
Faster in a small disk circumstance
-Extreme reliability --Able to literally remove a hotswap disk and insert a blank one in its place, only to have the blank disk completely regenerate the missing data --Journalling to record token ownership - helps recovery when node in possession dies
Cons -Everything must be trusted! Designed for clusters, not across LAN/WAN -Not appropriate for distributed networks.
XUFS
User-space implementation Designed to be simple Very generic