data evolution: 101

7
Data Evolution: 101

Upload: zareh

Post on 23-Feb-2016

41 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Data Evolution: 101. Parallel Filesystem vs Object Stores. Amazon S3. CIFS. NFS. Summary: Parallel Filesystem vs Object Stores. WOS Testing Limits. Extents-based Traditional File System Approach. Ease of use is limited at Scale FSCK challenges Inode data structures - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Data Evolution: 101

Data Evolution: 101

Page 2: Data Evolution: 101

Parallel Filesystem vs Object Stores

Amazon S3

CIFSNFS

Page 3: Data Evolution: 101

Summary: Parallel Filesystem vs Object Stores

Parallel Filesystem Object StoreClient access method Native RDMA Posix Client.

Posix reads and writes, MPIIOAPI (plus gateways): PUT, GET, DELETE

Object Types allowed Files and Directories Objects with defined structure (data, metadata, data protection policy, checksum)

IO types supported Parallel IO from single clients, parallel IO from multiple clients

Single stream IO from very large numbers of clients

Geographical distribution Usually local with some limited WAN capability

Global

Filesystem metadata managament

Usually use Inodes with pointers to data blocks and pointers to pointers

No inodes, object ID returned to client which encodes object location in a hash

Page 4: Data Evolution: 101

WOS Testing LimitsSystem Attributes WOS 2.5

Maximum # of Unique Objects 256 Billion

Maximum Total Cluster Capacity (using 4TB HDDs) 30.72 PB

Maximum Aggregate R/W Performance (SAS HDDs) 8M Object Reads; 2M Object Writes

Latency (4KB Read; 2-way Replication, SAS HDD) 9ms (Flash is even better)

Latency (4KB Write; 2-way Replication, SAS HDD) 25ms (Flash is even better)

Maximum Object Size; Minimum Object Size 5TB; 512B

Maximum Number of Nodes / Cluster 256 (2 nodes per WOS6000)

Maximum Metadata Space per ObjectID 64MB

Maximum # of Storage Zones 64

Maximum # of Replication/Protection Policies 64

4

Page 5: Data Evolution: 101

5

Extents-based Traditional File System Approach

• Ease of use is limited at Scale– FSCK challenges– Inode data structures– Fragmentation issues– Filesystem expansion tricky– No native understanding of

distribution of data– RAID management and hot-spare

management

Page 6: Data Evolution: 101

6

WOS (Web Object Scaler)• Not POSIX-based• Not RAID-based• No Spare Drives• No inode references, no FAT, no extent

lists• No more running fsck• No more volume management• Not based on single-site/box architecture

Page 7: Data Evolution: 101

DDN | WoSSoftware Stack

ObjectAssure™ Erasure CodingReplication Engine

WOS Policy Engine

De-clustered Data Management & Fast Rebuild

Self-Healing Object Storage Clustering

Latency-Aware Access Manager

WOS Core: Peer-to-Peer Object Storage

WO

S Cl

uste

r Man

agem

ent U

tility

Connectors

User-Defined Metadata

NFS & CIFS

GRIDScaler HSMAndroid, iOS & S3

Multi-Tenancy Layer

WOS APIC++, Java, Python,

PHP, HTTP,HTTP CDN Caching

EXAScaler HSM

API-basedIntegrate applications and devices more robustly

Policy drivenManage truly via policy, rather than micromanaging mulitiple layers of traditional filesystems

Global, Peer:PeerDistribute data across 100s of sites in one namespace

Self-HealingIntelligent Data Management system recovers from failures rapidly and autonomously

Data ProtectionReplicate and/or Erasure Code

Small files, large files, streaming filesLow seek times to get dataWOS cacheing servers for massive streaming data

Distributed Objects

Object ID Management