Transcript Storage

Storage
Cheap or Fast, Pick One
Storage
Great--you can do a lot of computation. But this
often generates a lot of data. Where are you
going to put it?
In the demo clusters we run, the front end just
has a little more disk than the compute
nodes. This is used for the NFS-mounted
home directories. But single drives do not
have very good performance and are
vulnerable to single-point failure
RAID
The next step up is RAID (Redundant Array of
Inexpensive|Independent Disks)
This uses a pool of disks to save data. Rather
than spend billions building special highcapacity disks, greater capacity is achieved by
simply putting PC disks into RAIDs.
Typically you need a RAID controller on the host
There are several types/levels of RAID
RAID 0
RAID 0 writes blocks to multiple disks without redundancy
Because the data is being written to multiple disks the controller
can work in parallel on both read and write, improving
performance
If any error occurs data can be lost
Don’t use on mission critical data; only for performance
Ideally you have one drive per controller
RAID 1
This is mirroring. The same data is written to two disks.
If either disk fails a complete copy of the data is
available at the other disk
Uses 2X the storage space, can get better performance
because the OS can pick the disk with the least seek
or rotational latency
RAID-5
RAID5 uses “parity” or redundant information. If a block
fails, enough parity information is available to recover
the data
The parity information is spread across all the disks
High read rate, medium write rate
A disk failure requires a rebuild as the parity information
is used to re-create the data lost
RAID-10
RAID-10 is striping plus mirroring, so you get
good performance plus a fully mirrored data,
at the expense of 2X disk
Storage
RAID-5 is a reasonable choice most of the time.
There are many commodity vendors of RAID arrays
SCSI RAID arrays are expensive, the disks are
expensive, and the disks have low capacity, but the
RAID arrays have good performance
ATA raid arrays have excellent price (1/3-1/2 that of
SCSI drives) and capacity, somewhat lower
performance
Apple ATA RAID: 7 TB, $11.5K
Promise Vtrak 15110: $4K plus 15 400GB SATA disks at
$300 = 6 TB for $8,500
Storage in Clusters
OK, so new you’ve got a RAID array. Now what?
A pretty typical approach is to attach the RAID array to
a host and then have that host serve NFS.
Sometimes called “Network Attached Storage” or NAS
Rather than being attached to the front end this may be
a node of its own in the cluster
C1
FE
C2
S1
RAID
NAS
You can easily set up a Windows or open source NAS
box and put it on the network. In the linux world this
is just a linux box running Samba for Windows
directory shares
You can also buy pre-configured “appliances” for disk
space. These are often boxes that run a strippeddown Linux variant and have a bunch of disks stuffed
into them, along with a web-based interface.
NAS Appliances
Sun StorEdge 5210
Dell PowerVault 745N
Snap Server 4200
Linksys, Iomega NAS (SOHO,
combined with wireless & print server)
NetApp (enterprise class)
Emerging class: a NAS front-end/gateway to a SAN
Storage Area Networks
SANs are high performance, and you pay for it.
A SAN has storage devices on a special network that
carries only I/O traffic. The storage devices are
connected to a set of servers. All the servers share all
the storage devices on the SAN.
In effect each server is attached to two networks: one
for communication with other hosts, the other
reserved for communicating with storage devices
Storage Area Network
SANs
SANs let you add storage to a pool that can be
shared by all servers connected to the SAN
This can be a hard problem to solve due to
parallelism. The original SANs sometimes had
a single server attached to a single disk
device to prevent simultaneous access
More recent SANs use a distributed filesystem
to avoid concurrency problems
Single Machine Filesystems
Server
Attached
Disk
This is a fairly simple problem to solve because there
is only one entity making requests of the disk-- “give
me 200 blocks”. The server can keep track of block
allocations and file names and make that information
permanent by writing it to disk
DFS
Server 1
FC
Switch
SAN
Disk
Server 2
S1 asks for 500 disk blocks to hold a file named “Foo”.
At the same time S2 asks for 200 blocks to hold a file named “Foo”
Which wins? How can we ensure that none of the blocks for S1
are also given to S2?
Effectively we need to serialize the requests to the SAN disk, and we need something to keep
track of file names and block allocations that can be queried by all the servers
MetaData
A solution is to use metadata. This is “data about data”. In effect it
keeps track of things like filenames and block allocations, just
like a single machine filesystem does
The metadata has to be available to all the servers who want to
participate in the SAN, so it is typically written on the SAN itself
Server 1
Server 2
FC
Switch
Meta
SAN
Disk
SAN
Disk
Metadata Comms
As an added twist, most implementations send the
metadata over a separate physical network from the
fibrechannel--usually gigabit ethernet. So every
device in the SAN is usually connected by two
networks
Gig E Switch
Server 1
Server 2
FC Switch
San
Disk
San
Disk
Meta
Data
SAN Disks
As you can see, the SAN “disks” are getting
pretty complex. In reality the “disks” are
usually RAID enclosures
The RAID enclosure has a FC port, an ethernet
port, and a RAID controller for its disks
The SAN is really building on top of RAID
building blocks
SAN
This arrangement has many advantages:
• Servers and storage devices can be spread farther apart
• All the storage devices go into a single, shared pool
• Very high performance; can do serverless backups
• Storage device availability not tied to the uptime of a host
• Can tie applications to specific storage types (ATA RAID for high
volume, SCSI RAID for high traffic transactional databases)
OTOH, SANs probably won’t go commodity any time soon, since
they have limited applicability to the desktop. Which means that
they will remain expensive and complex
iSCSI
The most common SAN network is fibre channel (FC).
The protocol used is often SCSI.
You can send SCSI over other network protocols; an
emerging option is iSCSI, which puts SCSI in IP over
gigabit ethernet. This is slower but exploits the
existing IP infrastructure and enables WAN SANs.
Why recreate another, separate network for data traffic
using a different hardware standard that requires
new training? Why not just use well-understood IP
networks that your people are already trained on?
The drawback is that iSCSI has somewhat higher
latency, which is an issue for disk access
iSCSI
iSCSI simply sends SCSI commands encapsulated inside TCP/IP,
just as FC SANs send SCSI commands encapsulated inside FC
frames
This can enable wide-area SANs (if you have the bandwidth and
are willing to live with the latency) since IP can be routed; a
SAN distributed across an entire state or country is possible
Putting the SCSI commands inside TCP/IP can add a couple layers
to the software stack, which unavoidably increases latency; Gbit
Ethernet also has less bandwidth than FC
Implementations seem a bit immature for the enterprise; might
ony make a splash with 10 gbit ethernet
Another option is ATA over Ethernet (AOE)
Fibre Channel Costs
Uses copper or optical fibre at 2+ Gbits/sec
Dell/EMC AX100, 3 TB SATA disks, 1 8 port fibre
channel switch, 1 FC card = $16K
FC cards approx. $500 each, 8 port FC switch aprox.
$2,500
Filers with hundreds of TB are available if you’ve got the
checkbook
Often SANs use SCSI disk arrays to maximize
performance
Optical FC has a range up to a few KM, so this can be
spread across a campus
SAN and Clusters
Fiber Channel Switching Fabric
FE
C1
Interconnect
Network
C2
C3
C4
FC
Storage
FC
Switch
FC
Storage
FC
Jukebox
Very high performance--the compute nodes participate in the
SAN and can share in the benefits of the high speed storage
network
SAN and Clusters
If you an afford this you can get very high
performance; you might have four network
interfaces (Gigabit ethernet, Infiniband,
Gigabit ethernet for metadata, and FC) on
each node
May work well in situations with heavy database
access, very heavy image processing
Biological research, etc.
SAN Example
Apple sells XSAN, their OEM’d storage area
network software; we are setting this up here
Beatnik
Bongo
FC
Switch
Raid 1
Raid2
Ethernet
Switch
XSAN
Each RAID enclosure of 14 disks may be divided up into
multiple Logical Unit Numbers (LUNs). One LUN
corresponds to one set of RAID disks--a single RAID
box may have more than one collection of RAID sets,
which may be of different types.
One of the RAID boxes has three LUNs: One set of
seven disks in a RAID-5 configuration, one set of five
disks in a RAID-5 configuration, and one set of two
disks in a RAID-1 configuration
XSAN
XSAN builds “Volumes” (a virtual disk) out of
“storage pools”. A storage pool consists of
one or more LUNs.
XSAN
A storage pool is simply a collection of LUNs,
and a volume consists of one or more storage
pools
XSAN
The LUNs are themselves used as RAID
elements; XSAN treats each of them as disks
and does a RAID-0 across them. This means
that LUNs in the same storage pool should be
of the same size
FC Switch Config
The FC switch requires some configuration; this is done via a web-based
interface. It’s not quite as easy as plug-and-go. “Initiators” are
computers, and “targets” are RAID enclosures
Non-Apple
Non-Apple computers can participate in the
SAN; there are Linux implementations of the
XSAN software available from third parties
Each computer participating in the SAN must
have the XSAN software; edu price is about
$500 per copy (more for Linux)
Summary
Buy some disk