360 likes | 523 Views
Ext2 On Singularity. Scott Finley University of Wisconsin – Madison CS 736 Project. Ext2 Defined. Basic, default Linux file system Almost exactly the same as FFS Disk broken into “block groups” Super-block, inode /block bitmaps, etc. Microsoft Research’s Singularity.
E N D
Ext2 On Singularity Scott Finley University of Wisconsin – Madison CS 736 Project
Ext2 Defined • Basic, default Linux file system • Almost exactly the same as FFS • Disk broken into “block groups” • Super-block, inode/block bitmaps, etc.
Microsoft Research’s Singularity • New from the ground up • Reliability as #1 goal • Reevaluate conventional OS structure • Leverage advances of the last 20 years • Languages and compilers • Static analysis of whole system
My Goals • Implement Ext2 on Singularity • Focus on read support with caching • Investigate how Singularity design impact FS integration • Investigate performance implications
Overview of Results • I have a Ext2 “working” on Singularity • Reading fully supported • Caching improves performance! • Limited write support • Singularity design • Garbage collection hurts performance • Reliability is good: I couldn’t crash it.
Outline • Singularity Details • Details of my Ext2 implementation • Results
Programming Environment • Everything is written in C# • Small pieces of kernel (< 5%) in assembly and C++ as needed • Kernel and processes are garbage collected • No virtual machine • Compiled to native code • Very aggressive optimizing compiler
Process Model • Singularity is a micro kernel • Everything else is a SIP • “Software Isolated Process” • No hardware based memory isolation • SIP “Object Space” isolation guaranteed by static analysis and safe language (C#) • Context switches are much faster
Communication Channels • All SIP communication is via message channels • No shared memory • Messages and data passed via Exchange Heap • Object ownership is tracked • Zero copy data passing via pointers
Disk Read Example • Application creates buffer in ExHeap App File System Disk Driver Exchange Heap Empty Buffer
Disk Read Example • Application send read request to file system • File system owns the buffer App File System Disk Driver Exchange Heap Empty Buffer
Disk Read Example • File system sends read request to driver • Driver owns the buffer App File System Disk Driver Exchange Heap Empty Buffer
Disk Read Example • Driver fills buffer and replies to file system App File System Disk Driver Exchange Heap Full Buffer
Disk Read Example • File system replies to application App File System Disk Driver Exchange Heap Full Buffer
Disk Read Example • Application consumes the buffer App File System Disk Driver Exchange Heap
Required Pieces • Ext2Control: Command line application • Ext2ClientManager: Manages mount points • Ext2FS: Core file system functionality • Ext2Contracts: Defines communication
Ext2 Client Manager • System service (SIP) launched at boot • Accessible at known location in /dev directory • Does “Ext2 stuff” • Operates on Ext2 volumes and mount points • Exports “Mount” and “Unmount” • Would also provide “Format” if implemented • 300 lines of code
Ext2 Control • Command line application • Allows Ext2 Client Manger interface access • Not used by other applications • 500 lines of code
Ext2Fs • Core Ext2 file system. • Separate instance (SIP) for each mount point. • Exports “Directory Service Provider” interface • Clients open files and directories by attaching a communication channel • Internally paired with an Inode. • Reads implemented, Writes in progress • 2400 Lines of code
File Read Sequence • Client wants to read file “/mnt/a/b.txt” • Ext2 mounted at “/mnt” • App --CH0-->SNS: <Bind,“/mnt/a/b.txt”,CH1> • App<--CH0-- SNS: <Reparse, “/mnt”> • App --CH0-->SNS: <Bind,”/mnt”,CH1> • App<--CH0-- SNS: <AckBind>
File Read Sequence 2 • App --CH1-->Ext2Fs: <Bind,“/a/b.txt”,CH2> • App<--CH1-- Ext2Fs: <AckBind> • App --CH2-->Ext2Fs: <Read, Buff, BOff, FOff> • App<--CH2-- Ext2Fs: <ReadAck, Buff> • …
Caching • Inodes: Used on every access • Block Numbers: Very important for large files • Data Blocks: Naturally captures others • All use LRU replacement • Large files unusable without caching • 8300X faster reading 350 MB file
Testing • Athlon 64 3200, 1 GB RAM • Disk: 120GB, 7200 RPM, 2 MB buffer, PATA • Measured sequential reads • Varied read buffer size from 4 KB to 96 MB • Timed each request • File sizes ranged from 13 MB to 350 MB
Results • Linux is faster • Not clear that this is fundamental • Performance is not horrible • “Good enough” objective met • Garbage collection hurts, but not “too bad” • Not sensitive to file size
Conclusion • System programming in a modern language • System programming with no crashes • Micro kernel is feasible • Hurts feature integration: mmap, cache sharing • Clean, simple interfaces