Copy-on-Write and SSDs – A better match than other file systems?

We have been taught that file systems are like folders, sub-folders and eventually files. The criteria in designing file systems is to ensure that there are few key features

  • Ease of storing, retrieving and organizing files (sounds like a fridge, doesn’t it?)
  • Simple naming convention for files
  • Performance in storing and retrieving files – hence our write and read I/Os
  • Resilience in restoring full or part of a file when there are discrepancies

In file systems performance design, one of the most important factors is locality. By locality, I mean that data blocks of a particular file should be as nearby as possible. Hence, in most file systems designs originated from the Berkeley Fast File System (BFFS), requires the file system to seek the data block to be modified to ensure locality, i.e. you try not to split up the contiguity of the data blocks. The seek time to find the require data block takes time, but you are compensate with faster reads because the read-ahead feature allows you to read extra blocks ahead in anticipation that the data blocks are related.

In Copy-on-Write file systems (also known as shadow-paging file systems), the seek portion is usually not present because the new modified block is written somewhere else, not the present location of the original block. This is the foundation of Copy-on-Write file systems such as NetApp’s WAFL and Oracle Solaris ZFS. Because the new data blocks are written somewhere else, the storing (write operation) portion is faster. It eliminated the seek time and it also skipped the read-modify-write action to the original location of the data block. Therefore, write is likely to be faster.

However, the read portion will be slower because if you want to read a file, the file system has to go around looking for the data blocks because it lacks the locality. Therefore, as the COW file system ages, it tends to have higher file system fragmentation. I wrote about this in my previous blog. It is a case of ENJOY-FIRST/SUFFER-LATER. I am not writing this to say that COW file systems are bad. Obviously, NetApp and Oracle have done enough homework to make the file systems one of the better storage file systems in the market.

So, that’s Copy-on-Write file systems. But what about SSDs?

Solid State Drives (SSDs) will make enemies with file systems that tend prefer locality. Remember that some file systems prefer its data blocks to be contiguous? Well, SSDs employ “wear-leveling” and required writes to be spread out as much as possible across the SSDs device to prolong the life of the SSD device to reduce “wear-and-tear”. That’s not good news because SSDs just told the file systems, “I don’t like locality and I will spread out the data blocks“.

NAND Flash SSDs (the common ones we find in the market and not DRAM-based SSDs) are funny creatures. When you write to SSDs, you must ERASE first, WRITE AGAIN to the SSDs. This is the part that is creating the wear-and tear of the device. When I mean ERASE first, WRITE AGAIN, I describe it below

  • Writing 1 –> 0 (OK, no problem)
  • Writing 0 –> 1 (not OK, because NAND Flash can’t do that)

So, what does the SSD do? It ERASES everything, writing the entire data blocks on the device to 1s, and then converting some of them to 0s. Crazy, isn’t it? The firmware in the SSDs controller will also spread out the erase-and-then write operations across the entire SSD device to avoid concentrating the operations on a small location or dataset. This is the “wear-leveling” we often hear about.

Since SSDs shun locality and avoid the data blocks to be nearby, and Copy-on-Write file systems are already doing this because its nature to write new data blocks somewhere else, the combination of both COW file system and SSDs seems like a very good fit. It even looks symbiotic because it is a case of “I help you; and you help me“.

From this perspective, the benefits of COW file systems and SSDs extends beyond resiliency of the SSD device but also in performance. Since the data blocks are spread out at different locations in the SSD device, the effect of parallelism will inadvertently help with COW’s performance. Make sense, doesn’t it?

I have not learned about other file systems and how they behave with SSDs, but it is pretty clear that Copy-on-Write file systems works well with Solid State Devices. Have a good week ahead :-)!

Snapshots? Don’t have a C-O-W about it!

Unfortunately, I am having a COW about it!

Snapshots are the inherent offspring of the copy-on-write technique used in shadow-paging filesystems. NetApp’s WAFL and Oracle Solaris ZFS are commercial implementations of shadow-paging filesystems and they are typically promoted as Copy-on-Write filesystems.

As we may already know, snapshots are point-in-time copy of the active file system in the storage world. They perform quick backup of the active file system by making a copy of the block addresses (pointers) of the filesystem and then updating the pointer maps to the inodes in the fsinfo root inode of the WAFL filesystem for new changes after the snapshot has been taken. The equivalent of fsinfo is the uberblock in the ZFS filesystem.

However, contrary to popular belief, the snapshots from WAFL and ZFS are not copy-on-write implementations even though the shadow paging filesystem tree employs the copy-on-write technique.

Consider this for a while when a snapshot is being taken … Copy —- On —- Write. If the definition is (1) Copy then (2) Write, this means that there are several several steps to perform a copy-on-write snapshot. The filesystem has to to make a copy of the original data block (1 x Read I/O), then write the original data block to a new location (1 x Write I/O) and then write the new data block to the location of the original data block (1 x Write I/O).

This is a 3-step process that can be summarized as

  1. Read location of original data block (1 x Read I/O)
  2. Copy this data block to new unused location (1 x Write I/O)
  3. Write the new and modified data block to the location of original data block (1 x Write I/O)

This implementation, IS THE copy-on-write technique for snapshot but NetApp and possibly Oracle guys have been saying for years that their snapshots are based on copy-on-write. This is pretty much a misnomer that needs to be corrected. EMC, in its SnapSure and SnapView implementation, called this technique Copy-on-First-Write (COFW), probably to avoid the confusion. The data blocks are copied to a savvol, a separate location to store the changes of snapshots and defaults to 10% of the total capacity of their storage solutions.

As you have seen, this method is a 3 x I/O operation and it is an expensive solution. Therefore, when we compare the speed of NetApp/ZFS snapshots to EMC’s snapshots, the EMC COFW snapshot technique will be a tad slower.

However, this method has one superior advantage over the NetApp/ZFS snapshot technique. The data blocks in the active filesystem are almost always laid out in a more contiguous fashion, resulting in a more consistent read performance throughout the life of the active file system.

Below is a diagram of how copy-on-write snapshots are implemented:

 

What is NetApp/ZFS’s snapshot method then?

It is is known as Redirect-on-Write. Using the same step … REDIRECT —- ON —– WRITE. When a data block is about to be modified, the original data block is read (1 x Read I/O) and then the data block is written to a new location (1 x Write I/O). The active file system then updates the filesystem tree and its inode address to reflect the location of the new data block. The original data block remained unchanged.

In summary,

  1. Read location of original data block (1 x Read I/O)
  2. Write modified data block to new location (1 x Write I/O)

The Redirect-on-Write method resulted in 1 Write I/O less, making snapshot creation faster. This is the NetApp/ZFS method and it is superior when compared to the Copy-on-Write snapshot technique discussed earlier.

However, as the life of the filesystem progresses, fragmentation and holes will cause the performance of the active filesystem to degrade. The reason is most related data blocks are no longer contiguous and the active file system will be busy seeking the scattered data blocks across the volume. Fragmented filesystem would have to be “cleaned and reorganized” to regain its performance lustre.

Another unwanted problem using the Redirect-on-Write snapshot technique is the snapshot resides in the same boundary as the active filesystem. Over time, if the capacity consumed by the snapshots could overwhelm the active filesystem, if their recycle schedule is unchecked.

I guess this is a case of “SUFFER NOW/ENJOY LATER” or “ENJOY NOW/SUFFER LATER”. We have to make a conscious effort to understand what snapshots are all about.