skip to main content
research-article

CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 November 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article, we design and implement a cooperative shingle-aware file system, called CosaFS, on heterogeneous storage devices that mix solid-state drives (SSDs) and shingled magnetic recording (SMR) technology to improve the overall performance of storage systems. The basic idea of CosaFS is to classify objects as hot or cold objects based on a proposed Lookahead with Recency Weight scheme. If an object is identified as a hot (small) object, then it will be served by SSD. Otherwise, cold (large) objects are stored on SMR. For an SMR, large objects can be accessed in large sequential blocks, rendering the performance of their accesses comparable with that of accessing the same large sequential blocks as if they were stored on a hard drive. Small objects, such as inodes and directories, are stored on the SSD where “seeks” for such objects are nearly free. With thorough empirical studies, we demonstrate that CosaFS, as a cooperative shingle-aware file system, with metadata separation and cache-assistance, is a very effective way to handle the disk-based data demanded by the shingled writes and outperforms the device- and host-side shingle-aware file systems in terms of throughput, IOPS, and access latency as well.

References

  1. Abutalib Aghayev and Peter Desnoyers. 2015. Skylight—A window on shingled disk operation. In Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST’15). 135--149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ahmed Amer, JoAnne Holliday, Darrell D. E. Long, Ethan L. Miller, Jehan-Francois Paris, and S. J. Thomas Schwarz. 2011. Data management and layout for shingled magnetic recording. IEEE Trans. Magn. 47, 10 (October 2011), 3691--3697. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ahmed Amer, Darrell D. E. Long, Ethan L. Miller, Jehan-Francois Paris, and S. J. Thomas Schwarz. 2010. Design issues for a shingled write disk system. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technology (MSST’10). IEEE, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Y. Cassuto, M. A. A. Sanvido, C. Guyot, D. R. Hall, and Z. Z. Bandic. 2010. Indirection systems for shingled-recording disk drives. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST). 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Dar-Der Chang, Ken Hong, Byeung Jun Lee, and Xin Guo. 2011. Floating Guard Band for Shingled Magnetic Recording. US Patent 20 110 304 935.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. CMU SMR Wiki. 2013. Retrieved from https://wiki.pdl.cmu.edu/SMR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tim Feldman and Garth Gibson. 2013. Shingled magnetic recording: Areal density increase requires new data management. Login: USENIX Mag. 38, 3 (2013), 22--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. FileBench. 2008. FileBench. Retrieved from http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/FileBench.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. G. Gibson and G. Ganger. 2011. Principles of Operation for Shingled Disk Devices. Technical Report CMU-PDL-11-107. Parallel Data Lab, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Garth Gibson and Milo Polte. 2009. Directions for Shingled-Write and Two-Dimensional Magnetic Recording System Architectures: Synergies with Solid-State Disks. Technical Report CMU-PDL-09-104. Carnegie Mellon University Parallel Data Lab.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jongmin Gim and Youjip Won. 2010. Extract and infer quickly: Obtaining sector geometry of modern hard disk drives. ACM Trans. Stor. 6, 2 (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jim Hatfield. 2011. ACS-3 Banded Devices feature set. T13 Technical Committee. Retrieved from http://www.t13.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jim Hatfield. 2011. Project Proposal - Banded Command Set. T13 Technical Committee. Retrieved from http://www.t13.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Weiping He and David H. C. Du. 2014. Novel address mappings for shingled write disks. In Proceedings of the 6th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Storage and File Systems (HotStorage’14). USENIX Association, 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Chao Jin, Wei-Ya Xi, Zhi-Yong Ching, Feng Huo, and Chun-Teck Lim. 2014. HiSMRfs: A high performance file system for shingled storage array. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE International Symposium on Massive Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST’14). IEEE, Santa Clara, CA, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. P. Kasiraj, R. M. H. New, J. C. De Souza, and M. L. Williams. 2009. System and method for writing data to dedicated bands of a hard disk drive. US Patent 7,490,212. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/patents/US7490212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Damien Le Moal, Zvonimir Bandic, and Cyril Guyot. 2012. Shingled file system host-side management of shingled magnetic recording disks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE’12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Richard New and Mason Williams. 2011. Log-structured file system for disk drives with shingled writing. US Patent 7,996,645. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/patents/US7996645.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dongchul Park and David H. C. Du. 2011. Hot data identification for flash-based storage systems using multiple bloom filters. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (MSST’11). IEEE, 1--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. R. Pitchumani, Y. Xie, A. Hospodor, A. Amer, and E. L. Miller. 2012. Emulating a shingled write disk. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS’12). 339--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Anand Suresh, Garth Gibson, and Greg Ganger. 2012. Shingled Magnetic Recording for Big Data Applications. Technical Report CMU-PDL-12-105. Carnegie Mellon University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. I. Tagawa and M. Williams. 2009. High density data-storage using shingle-write. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Magnetics Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. R. Wood, M. Williams, A. Kavcic, and J. Miles. 2009. The feasibility of magnetic recording at 10 terabits per square inch on conventional media. IEEE Trans. Magn. 45, 2 (Feb. 2009), 917--923. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Storage
      ACM Transactions on Storage  Volume 13, Issue 4
      Special Issue on MSST 2017 and Regular Papers
      November 2017
      329 pages
      ISSN:1553-3077
      EISSN:1553-3093
      DOI:10.1145/3160863
      • Editor:
      • Sam H. Noh
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 November 2017
      • Accepted: 1 September 2017
      • Revised: 1 December 2016
      • Received: 1 January 2016
      Published in tos Volume 13, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!