skip to main content


Title: External-Memory Dictionaries in the Affine and PDAM Models
Storage devices have complex performance profiles, including costs to initiate IOs (e.g., seek times in hard 15 drives), parallelism and bank conflicts (in SSDs), costs to transfer data, and firmware-internal operations. The Disk-access Machine (DAM) model simplifies reality by assuming that storage devices transfer data in blocks of size B and that all transfers have unit cost. Despite its simplifications, the DAM model is reasonably accurate. In fact, if B is set to the half-bandwidth point, where the latency and bandwidth of the hardware are equal, then the DAM approximates the IO cost on any hardware to within a factor of 2. Furthermore, the DAM model explains the popularity of B-trees in the 1970s and the current popularity of Bε -trees and log-structured merge trees. But it fails to explain why some B-trees use small nodes, whereas all Bε -trees use large nodes. In a DAM, all IOs, and hence all nodes, are the same size. In this article, we show that the affine and PDAM models, which are small refinements of the DAM model, yield a surprisingly large improvement in predictability without sacrificing ease of use. We present benchmarks on a large collection of storage devices showing that the affine and PDAM models give good approximations of the performance characteristics of hard drives and SSDs, respectively. We show that the affine model explains node-size choices in B-trees and Bε -trees. Furthermore, the models predict that B-trees are highly sensitive to variations in the node size, whereas Bε -trees are much less sensitive. These predictions are born out empirically. Finally, we show that in both the affine and PDAM models, it pays to organize data structures to exploit varying IO size. In the affine model, Bε -trees can be optimized so that all operations are simultaneously optimal, even up to lower-order terms. In the PDAM model, Bε -trees (or B-trees) can be organized so that both sequential and concurrent workloads are handled efficiently. We conclude that the DAM model is useful as a first cut when designing or analyzing an algorithm or data structure but the affine and PDAM models enable the algorithm designer to optimize parameter choices and fill in design details.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1938180 2106999 2118620
NSF-PAR ID:
10298512
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
ACM transactions on parallel computing
ISSN:
2329-4949
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Storage devices have complex performance profiles, including costs to initiate IOs (e.g., seek times in hard drives), parallelism and bank conflicts (in SSDs), costs to transfer data, and firmware-internal operations. The Disk-access Machine (DAM) model simplifies reality by assuming that storage devices transfer data in blocks of size B and that all transfers have unit cost. Despite its simplifications, the DAM model is reasonably accurate. In fact, if B is set to the half-bandwidth point, where the latency and bandwidth of the hardware are equal, then the DAM approximates the IO cost on any hardware to within a factor of 2. Furthermore, the DAM model explains the popularity of B-trees in the 1970s and the current popularity of B ɛ -trees and log-structured merge trees. But it fails to explain why some B-trees use small nodes, whereas all B ɛ -trees use large nodes. In a DAM, all IOs, and hence all nodes, are the same size. In this article, we show that the affine and PDAM models, which are small refinements of the DAM model, yield a surprisingly large improvement in predictability without sacrificing ease of use. We present benchmarks on a large collection of storage devices showing that the affine and PDAM models give good approximations of the performance characteristics of hard drives and SSDs, respectively. We show that the affine model explains node-size choices in B-trees and B ɛ -trees. Furthermore, the models predict that B-trees are highly sensitive to variations in the node size, whereas B ɛ -trees are much less sensitive. These predictions are born out empirically. Finally, we show that in both the affine and PDAM models, it pays to organize data structures to exploit varying IO size. In the affine model, B ɛ -trees can be optimized so that all operations are simultaneously optimal, even up to lower-order terms. In the PDAM model, B ɛ -trees (or B-trees) can be organized so that both sequential and concurrent workloads are handled efficiently. We conclude that the DAM model is useful as a first cut when designing or analyzing an algorithm or data structure but the affine and PDAM models enable the algorithm designer to optimize parameter choices and fill in design details. 
    more » « less
  2. Data center downtime typically centers around IT equipment failure. Storage devices are the most frequently failing components in data centers. We present a comparative study of hard disk drives (HDDs) and solid state drives (SSDs) that constitute the typical storage in data centers. Using six-year field data of 100,000 HDDs of different models from the same manufacturer from the Backblaze dataset and six-year field data of 30,000 SSDs of three models from a Google data center, we characterize the workload conditions that lead to failures. We illustrate that their root failure causes differ from common expectations and that they remain difficult to discern. For the case of HDDs we observe that young and old drives do not present many differences in their failures. Instead, failures may be distinguished by discriminating drives based on the time spent for head positioning. For SSDs, we observe high levels of infant mortality and characterize the differences between infant and non-infant failures. We develop several machine learning failure prediction models that are shown to be surprisingly accurate, achieving high recall and low false positive rates. These models are used beyond simple prediction as they aid us to untangle the complex interaction of workload characteristics that lead to failures and identify failure root causes from monitored symptoms. 
    more » « less
  3. Modern NVMe solid state drives offer significantly higher bandwidth and low latency than prior storage devices. Current key-value stores struggle to fully utilize the bandwidth of such devices. This paper presents SplinterDB, a new key-value store explicitly designed for NVMe solid state drives. SplinterDB is designed around a novel data structure (the STBε-tree), that exposes I/O and CPU concurrency and reduces write amplification without sacrificing query performance. STBε-tree combines ideas from log-structured merge trees and Bε-trees to reduce write amplification and CPU costs of compaction. The SplinterDB memtable and cache are designed to be highly concurrent and to reduce cache misses. We evaluate SplinterDB on a number of micro- and macro-benchmarks, and show that SplinterDB outperforms RocksDB, a state-of-the-art key-value store, by a factor of 6–10x on insertions and 2–2.6x on point queries, while matching RocksDB on small range queries. Furthermore, SplinterDB reduces write amplification by 2x compared to RocksDB. 
    more » « less
  4. Modern NVMe solid state drives offer significantly higher bandwidth and low latency than prior storage devices. Current key-value stores struggle to fully utilize the bandwidth of such devices. This paper presents SplinterDB, a new key-value store explicitly designed for NVMe solid state drives. SplinterDB is designed around a novel data structure (the STBε-tree), that exposes I/O and CPU concurrency and reduces write amplification without sacrificing query performance. STBε-tree combines ideas from log-structured merge trees and Bε-trees to reduce write amplification and CPU costs of compaction. The SplinterDB memtable and cache are designed to be highly concurrent and to reduce cache misses. We evaluate SplinterDB on a number of micro- and macro-benchmarks, and show that SplinterDB outperforms RocksDB, a state-of-the-art key-value store, by a factor of 6–10x on insertions and 2–2.6x on point queries, while matching RocksDB on small range queries. Furthermore, SplinterDB reduces write amplification by 2x compared to RocksDB. 
    more » « less
  5. The adoption of low latency persistent memory modules (PMMs) upends the long-established model of remote storage for distributed file systems. Instead, by colocating computation with PMM storage, we can provide applications with much higher IO performance, sub-second application failover, and strong consistency. To demonstrate this, we built the Assise distributed file system, based on a persistent, replicated coherence protocol that manages client-local PMM as a linearizable and crash-recoverable cache between applications and slower (and possibly remote) storage. Assise maximizes locality for all file IO by carrying out IO on process-local, socket-local, and client-local PMM whenever possible. Assise minimizes coherence overhead by maintaining consistency at IO operation granularity, rather than at fixed block sizes. We compare Assise to Ceph/BlueStore, NFS, and Octopus on a cluster with Intel Optane DC PMMs and SSDs for common cloud applications and benchmarks, such as LevelDB, Postfix, and FileBench. We find that Assise improves write latency up to 22×, throughput up to 56×, fail-over time up to 103×, and scales up to 6× better than its counterparts, while providing stronger consistency semantics. 
    more » « less