A couple of weeks back we were talking with Qumulo at Storage Field Day 20 (SFD20) and they made mention that they were able to provide 100% performance at 99% full. Please see their video session during SFD20 (which can be seen here). I was a bit incredulous of this seeing as how every other modern storage system performance degrades long before they get to 99% capacity.
So I asked them to explain how this was possible. But before we get to that a little background on modern storage systems would be warranted.
The perils of log structured file systems
Most modern storage systems use a log structured file system where when they write data they write it to a sequential log and use a virtual addressing scheme to show where the data is located for that address, creating a (data) log of written blocks.
However, when data is overwritten, it leaves gaps in these data logs. These gaps need to be somehow recycled (squeezed out) in order to be able to be consumed as storage capacity. This recycling process is commonly called “garbage collection”.
Garbage collection does its work by reading heavily gapped log files and re-writing the old, but still current, data into a new log. This frees up those gaps to be reused. But garbage collection like this takes reading and writing of logs to free up space.
Now as log structured file systems get (70-80-90%) full, they need to spend more and more system time and effort (=performance) garbage collecting . This takes system (IO) performance away from normal host IO activity. Which is why I didn’t believe that Qumulo could offer 100% IO performance at 99% full.
But there was always another way to supply storage virtualization (read snapshotting) besides log files. Yes it might involve more metadata (table) management, but what it takes in more metadata, it gives back by requiring no garbage collection.
How Qumulo does without garbage collection
Qumulo has a scaled block store for a back end of their file and object cluster store. And yes it’s still a virtualized block store BUT it’s not a log structured file store.
It seems that there’s a virtual-to-physical mapping table that is used by Qumulo to determine the physical address of any virtual block in the file system. And files are allocated to virtual blocks directly through the use of B-tree metadata. These B-trees indicate which virtual blocks are in use by a file and its snapshots
If a host overwrites a data block. The block can be freed (if not being used in a snapshot) and placed on a freed block list and a new block is allocated in its place. The file’s allocated blocks b-tree is updated to reflect the new block and that’s it.
For snapshots, Qumulo uses something they call “write-out-of-place” process when data that a snapshot points to is overwritten. Again, it appears as if snapshots are some extra metadata associated with a file’s B-tree that defines the data in the snapshot.
The problem comes in when a file is deleted. If it’s a big enough file (TB-PB?), there could be millions to billions of blocks that have to be freed up. This would take entirely too long for a delete command, so this is done in the background. Qumulo calls this “reclaim delete“. So a delete of a big file unlinks the block B-tree from the directory and puts it on this reclaim delete work queue to free up these blocks later. Similarly, when a big snapshot is deleted, Qumulo performs a background process called “reclaim snapshot” for snapshot unique blocks.
As can be seen (it’s very hard to see given the coloration of the chart) from this screen shot of Qumulo’s session at SFD20, reclaim delete and reclaim snapshot are being done concurrently (in the background) with normal system IO. What’s interesting to note here is that reclaim IO (delete and snapshots) are going on all the time during the customers actual work. Why the write throughput drops significantly doing the the 27-29 of July is hard to understand. But the one case where it’s most serious (middle of July 28) reclaim IO also drops significantly. If reclaim IO were impacting write performance I would have expected it to have gone higher when write throughput went lower. But that’s not the case. From what I can see in the above reclaim IO has no impact on read or write throughput at this customer.
So essentially, by using a backing block store that does no garbage collection (not using a log structured file system), Qumulo is able to offer 100% system IO performance at 99% full – woah.
4 thoughts on “Storage that provides 100% performance at 99% full”
“every other modern storage system performance degrades long before they get to 99% capacity”
You need to have a look at IBM’s Spectrum Scale. 😉
Pete, Thanks for your comment. I am very aware of Spectrum Scale and it’s capabilities in HPC environments. However, I’ve never seen anything about it that purports to providing 100% performance at 99% full. Not saying it doesn’t do that already but nothing I’ve seen or heard says that it can do that.
I can vouch for it providing 100% performance at 99% full. I had the luxury of performance testing a brand new cluster with real-world data in the VFX world.
It slows a _little_ after 99.98% full as it’s searching for free blocks, but otherwise good.
Looking forward to reading more of your posts. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the information and comment. IBM doesn’t produce a lot of news about this capability. Maybe they just assume every file system can do this. But they can’t…
Comments are closed.