应用程序可以从fsync失败中恢复吗?

Anthony Rebello, Yuvraj Patel, R. Alagappan, A. Arpaci-Dusseau, Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau
{"title":"应用程序可以从fsync失败中恢复吗?","authors":"Anthony Rebello, Yuvraj Patel, R. Alagappan, A. Arpaci-Dusseau, Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau","doi":"10.1145/3450338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We analyze how file systems and modern data-intensive applications react to fsync failures. First, we characterize how three Linux file systems (ext4, XFS, Btrfs) behave in the presence of failures. We find commonalities across file systems (pages are always marked clean, certain block writes always lead to unavailability) as well as differences (page content and failure reporting is varied). Next, we study how five widely used applications (PostgreSQL, LMDB, LevelDB, SQLite, Redis) handle fsync failures. Our findings show that although applications use many failure-handling strategies, none are sufficient: fsync failures can cause catastrophic outcomes such as data loss and corruption. Our findings have strong implications for the design of file systems and applications that intend to provide strong durability guarantees.","PeriodicalId":273014,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Storage (TOS)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Applications Recover from fsync Failures?\",\"authors\":\"Anthony Rebello, Yuvraj Patel, R. Alagappan, A. Arpaci-Dusseau, Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3450338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We analyze how file systems and modern data-intensive applications react to fsync failures. First, we characterize how three Linux file systems (ext4, XFS, Btrfs) behave in the presence of failures. We find commonalities across file systems (pages are always marked clean, certain block writes always lead to unavailability) as well as differences (page content and failure reporting is varied). Next, we study how five widely used applications (PostgreSQL, LMDB, LevelDB, SQLite, Redis) handle fsync failures. Our findings show that although applications use many failure-handling strategies, none are sufficient: fsync failures can cause catastrophic outcomes such as data loss and corruption. Our findings have strong implications for the design of file systems and applications that intend to provide strong durability guarantees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":273014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Storage (TOS)\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Storage (TOS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3450338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Storage (TOS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3450338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

我们分析了文件系统和现代数据密集型应用程序对fsync失败的反应。首先,我们描述三个Linux文件系统(ext4、XFS、Btrfs)在出现故障时的行为。我们发现了文件系统之间的共性(页面总是标记干净,某些块写总是导致不可用)以及差异(页面内容和失败报告各不相同)。接下来,我们研究了五个广泛使用的应用程序(PostgreSQL, LMDB, LevelDB, SQLite, Redis)如何处理fsync失败。我们的研究结果表明,尽管应用程序使用了许多故障处理策略,但没有一个是足够的:fsync故障可能导致灾难性的结果,如数据丢失和损坏。我们的发现对于想要提供强持久性保证的文件系统和应用程序的设计具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can Applications Recover from fsync Failures?
We analyze how file systems and modern data-intensive applications react to fsync failures. First, we characterize how three Linux file systems (ext4, XFS, Btrfs) behave in the presence of failures. We find commonalities across file systems (pages are always marked clean, certain block writes always lead to unavailability) as well as differences (page content and failure reporting is varied). Next, we study how five widely used applications (PostgreSQL, LMDB, LevelDB, SQLite, Redis) handle fsync failures. Our findings show that although applications use many failure-handling strategies, none are sufficient: fsync failures can cause catastrophic outcomes such as data loss and corruption. Our findings have strong implications for the design of file systems and applications that intend to provide strong durability guarantees.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信