Re: Question regarding to store file system metadata in database

[Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu>]

On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 13:50 -0500, Xin Zhao wrote:
> I agree that people always want to access metadata faster. But if a
> system seldom need to do pathname-to-inode translation for over 300
> times per second, even one can access do this translation for over
> thousands times per second, the difference on file system performance
> could be very small. Plus, I have no real data on how many times a
> busy email server open files, but I really doubt it really needs to
> open files 300 times/second.

ok, so u want u httpd server only serve 300 files per sec? when a web
page can contains 5-60 small images,  u will feel crazy with that 300.


> 
> Anybody know how fast a file system can do pathname-to-inode
> translation? I know the performance value could vary according to
> different access pattern and the size of dentry cache. But an average
> value should bu sufficient in our informal discussion.
> 
> Last, database-based file system is not so complex. As first step, I
> am just proposing to store pathanem-to-inode number in database. So it
> is basically a simple table. We don't really need any fancy features
> provided by db system. That's why I said a reduced  db system is
> enough. So the only difference betwen db-based file system and a
> regular one is that regular file system use directory file to store
> entries, but db-based file system use database to achieve the same
> goal. Looks like db will be a more efficient way. ;-)

first, others already point out that there are already mini-db there.
second, what is the point to use a regular db to just store file name?
third, do u still think 300 is MORE efficient?
fourth, if you think sql here is good, then shall we use xml here? ;)



> 
> Xin
> 
> On 3/19/06, Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu> wrote:
> > no. i have no such statistics. also people always want it to be faster,
> > so it is never enough.
> >
> > from another point of view, if such fs is used by a mail server, large #
> > of file create/close/modify will be vital for it. 300/s is not enough
> > for a busy mail server of course.
> >
> > database based file system will be useful for archiving. for heavy
> > online use? not sure.
> >
> > also will a database based fs too be too complex while all benefits
> > brought by db can be brought by add-on utilities? find and grep do not
> > fit u bill?
> >
> > ming
> >
> > On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 13:11 -0500, Xin Zhao wrote:
> > > Do you have any statistics on how many metadata accesses are required
> > > for a heavy load file system?  I don't have on in hand, but
> > > intuitively I think 300 per second should be enough. If storing
> > > metadata in database will not hit the file system performance, plus
> > > database allows flexible file searching, the database-based file
> > > system might not be a bad idea. :)
> > >
> > > Xin
> > >
> > > On 3/19/06, Ming Zhang <mingz@ele.uri.edu> wrote:
> > > > database can reside on a raw block device.
> > > >
> > > > but 300 metadata iops is not that fast. ;)
> > > >
> > > > ming
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 12:48 -0500, Xin Zhao wrote:
> > > > > well, the database could reside on another file system. So the
> > > > > database based file system could be a secondary file system but
> > > > > provide more features and  better performance. I am not saying that
> > > > > database-based file system must be the only filesystem on the system.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/19/06, Mikado <mikado4vn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where is that database located, on other filesystem or on database-based
> > > > > > filesystem?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xin Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > > I was wondering why only few file system uses database to store file
> > > > > > > system metadata. Here, metadata primarily refers to directory entries.
> > > > > > > For example, one can setup a database to store file pathname, its
> > > > > > > inode number, and some extended attribution. File pathname can be used
> > > > > > > as primary key. As such, we can achieve pathname to inode mapping as
> > > > > > > well as many other features such as fast search and extended file
> > > > > > > attribute management. In contrast, storing file system entries in
> > > > > > > directory files may result in slow dentry search. I guess that's why
> > > > > > > ReiserFS and some other file systems proposed to use B+ tree like
> > > > > > > strucutre to manage file entries. But why not simple use database to
> > > > > > > provide the same feature? DB has been heavily optimized to provide
> > > > > > > fast search and should be good at managing metadata.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  I guess one concern about this idea is  performance impact caused by
> > > > > > > database system. I ran a test on a mysql database: I inserted about
> > > > > > > 1.2 million such kind of records into an initially empty mysql
> > > > > > > database. Average insertion rate is about 300 entries per second,
> > > > > > > which is fast enough to handle normal file system burden, I think.  I
> > > > > > > haven't try the query speed, but I believe it should be fast enough
> > > > > > > too (maybe I am wrong, if so, please point that out.).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then I am a little curious why only few people use database to store
> > > > > > > file system metadata, although I know WinFS plans to use database to
> > > > > > > manage metadata. I guess one reason is that it is difficult for kernel
> > > > > > > based file system driver to access database. But this could be
> > > > > > > addressed by using efficient kernel/user communication mechanism.
> > > > > > > Another reason could be the worry about database system. If database
> > > > > > > system crashes, file system will stop functioning too. However, the
> > > > > > > feature needed by file system is really a small part of database
> > > > > > > system, A reduced database system should be sufficient to provide this
> > > > > > > feature and be stable enough to support a file system.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can someone point out more issues that could become obstables to using
> > > > > > > database to manage metadata for a file system?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Many thanks!
> > > > > > > Xin
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > > > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > > > > > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > iD8DBQFEHOceNWc9T2Wr2JcRAsKKAJ9t1fRZ1xczAaeruDUqTNeLMcGuiwCfeTNt
> > > > > > 31pFUK79Q7BE1AptbmNqr9Q=
> > > > > > =LbiF
> > > > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/