[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: (fwd) Re: [RFC] mount flag "direct"
    Hi Peter,

    after following this discussion I have some ideas which might
    help you, but have to ask some more questions to find out clearly
    what you are trying to do and express it in terms known to this
    audience (which has failed so far, it seems).

    1. You want to stream lots of data from a external source (which
    might be the network) to a bunch of machines which are
    connected to the same file system, where file system is a file
    system designed to be a local one (like FAT, NTFS, EXT2FS and
    so on).

    2. This filesystem is on a single device, which is attached to
    multiple machines, right?

    3. You problem is, that your data arrives at some hundred MB/s

    4. You want to solve it by force with using multiple machines to
    accept the data but sharing one super fast persistent device
    between them, ok?

    5. To archieve 4. you cannot trust the caches and want to disable

    6. Do you have a "master" machine or do you want each machine
    only peering each other?

    7. Is fast bidirectional communication between the machines over
    some kind of wire/network possible?

    I would suggest not to disable caches, but to use timed leases on
    them to not penalize read only metadata operations (which are
    ~100% in your case).

    If you read in some cache item, then you tell all your machines,
    that you did so and want to use it read only for a time of X.
    That is called a "lease", because other machines can tell you, that
    you cannot use your cache anymore, because they need to
    invalidate it. Leases can be broken by the grantor as opposed to
    locks, which can only be released by the holder.

    You can make the cache items very big and chunk them together to
    reduce communication overhead, so performance should not be that

    The writing case happens not that often you say, so you can make
    it as easy as:

    1) Disallow new leases on the related items (if you cannot
    find out relations, than disallow ALL new leases).

    2) Breaking all related leases while telling them
    waiting for the lease clients to ACK the breakage.

    3) Do you update, flush it to disk.

    4) Reallow leases.

    One of your problems are file extension and mtime updates.

    This could be solved by restricting both to only one machine and
    propagating the changes to the other machines. It's like an
    allocator thread, if you are familiar with this concept.

    These mechanisms are basically some kind of cache coherency
    protocol. A special network between these machines just for that
    might be worthwhile.

    You don't need to change ANY on-disk format.
    You need to change the locks of kernel meta data caching into

    Now you have sth. to work with, which is well known, is
    performant in your use case and acceptable in OS terms.

    But please answer my questions and doubts first, because I might
    be way off, if my assumptions are wrong.

    Hope this helps.


    Ingo Oeser
    Science is what we can tell a computer. Art is everything else. --- D.E.Knuth
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.024 / U:30.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site