Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.development.system
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newsroom.utas.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jlemon
From: jlemon@netcom.com (Jonathan Lemon)
Subject: Re: The better (more suitable)Unix?? FreeBSD or Linux
Message-ID: <jlemonDMtqK4.8H1@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <4er9hp$5ng@orb.direct.ca> <4fg8fe$j9i@pell.pell.chi.il.us> <4fm2b1$ivs@park.uvsc.edu> <4fu70i$20q@pell.pell.chi.il.us>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 15:48:04 GMT
Lines: 47
Sender: jlemon@netcom22.netcom.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:13805 comp.os.linux.development.system:17359
In article <4fu70i$20q@pell.pell.chi.il.us>, Orc <orc@pell.chi.il.us> wrote:
>In article <4fm2b1$ivs@park.uvsc.edu>,
>Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote:
>
>>The best paper I have seen on this so far is Gregory R. Ganger
>>and Yale N. Pratt's paper "Metadata Update Performance in File
>>Systems", where they propose a mechanism they term "soft updates".
>>
>>A related paper, Eric H. Herrin II and Raphael A. Finkel's "The
>>Viva File System" goes into some detail on what constitutes an
>>idempotent vs. a non-idempotent operation, and where you must
>>guarantee order atomicity -- as does the UCB "SPRITE" paper.
>
> Where are these papers available?
USENIX 1994 OPERATING SYSTEMS DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCEEDINGS
Gregory R. Ganger, Yale N. Patt
Department of EECS, University of Michigan
ganger@eecs.umich.edu
Abstract
Structural changes, such as file creation and block allocation, have
consistently been identified as file system performance problems in
many user environments. We compare several implementations that
maintain metadata integrity in the event of a system failure but do
not require changes to the on-disk structures. In one set of schemes,
the file system uses asynchronous writes and passes ordering
requirements to the disk scheduler. These scheduler-enforced ordering
schemes outperform the conventional approach (synchronous writes) by
more than 30 percent for metadata update intensive benchmarks, but are
suboptimal mainly due to their inability to safely use delayed writes
when ordering is required. We therefore introduce soft updates, an
implementation that asymptotically approaches memory-based file system
performance (within 5 percent) while providing stronger integrity and
security guarantees than most UNIX file systems. For metadata update
in- tensive benchmarks, this improves performance by more than a
factor of two when compared to the conventional approach.
The proceedings can be ordered from USENIX (http://www.usenix.org) or the
paper may be on the umich server somewhere. I believe the VIVA paper was
also presented at a USENIX conference, but I don't know which one.
Disclaimer: I haven't read any of these papers.. :-(
--
Jonathan