Metadata Traces and Workload Models for Evaluating Big Storage Systems

Efficient namespace metadata management is increasingly important as next-generation file systems are designed for peta and exascales. New schemes have been proposed, however, their evaluation has been insufficient due to a lack of appropriate namespace metadata traces. Specifically, no Big Data storage system metadata trace is publicly available and existing ones are a poor replacement. We studied publicly available traces and one Big Data trace from Yahoo! and note some of the differences and their implications to metadata management studies. We discuss the insufficiency of existing evaluation approaches and present a first step towards a statistical metadata workload model that can capture the relevant characteristics of a workload and is suitable for synthetic workload generation. We describe Mimesis, a synthetic workload generator, and evaluate its usefulness through a case study in a least recently used metadata cache for the Hadoop Distributed File System. Simulation results show that the traces generated by Mimesis mimic the original workload and can be used in place of the real trace providing accurate results.

[1]  W. Jencks Evolution on fast-forward , 1992, Nature.

[2]  Amin Vahdat,et al.  MediSyn: a synthetic streaming media service workload generator , 2003, NOSSDAV '03.

[3]  Jacob R. Lorch,et al.  A five-year study of file-system metadata , 2007, TOS.

[4]  Pete Wyckoff,et al.  File Creation Strategies in a Distributed Metadata File System , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium.

[5]  Shobhit Dayal,et al.  Characterizing HEC Storage Systems at Rest , 2008 .

[6]  Bin Zhou,et al.  Scalable Performance of the Panasas Parallel File System , 2008, FAST.

[7]  Karthik Vijayakumar,et al.  Scalable I/O tracing and analysis , 2009, PDSW '09.

[8]  Gabriel Antoniu,et al.  Enabling High Data Throughput in Desktop Grids through Decentralized Data and Metadata Management: The BlobSeer Approach , 2009, Euro-Par.

[9]  Shankar Pasupathy,et al.  Spyglass: Fast, Scalable Metadata Search for Large-Scale Storage Systems , 2009, FAST.

[10]  Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau,et al.  Generating realistic impressions for file-system benchmarking , 2009, TOS.

[11]  Konstantin V. Shvachko,et al.  HDFS Scalability: The Limits to Growth , 2010, login Usenix Mag..

[12]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Delay scheduling: a simple technique for achieving locality and fairness in cluster scheduling , 2010, EuroSys '10.

[13]  Sean Quinlan,et al.  GFS: evolution on fast-forward , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[14]  Yanpei Chen,et al.  Design implications for enterprise storage systems via multi-dimensional trace analysis , 2011, SOSP '11.

[15]  Garth A. Gibson,et al.  Scale and Concurrency of GIGA+: File System Directories with Millions of Files , 2011, FAST.

[16]  Sadaf R. Alam,et al.  Parallel I/O and the metadata wall , 2011, PDSW '11.

[17]  Cristina L. Abad,et al.  DARE: Adaptive Data Replication for Efficient Cluster Scheduling , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

[18]  Erez Zadok,et al.  Benchmarking File System Benchmarking: It *IS* Rocket Science , 2011, HotOS.

[19]  Erez Zadok,et al.  Extracting flexible, replayable models from large block traces , 2012, FAST.

[20]  Cristina L. Abad,et al.  Metadata Workloads for Testing Big Storage Systems , 2012 .

[21]  Cristina L. Abad,et al.  A storage-centric analysis of MapReduce workloads: File popularity, temporal locality and arrival patterns , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC).

[22]  Srikanth Kandula,et al.  PACMan: Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel Jobs , 2012, NSDI.

[23]  Zhao Zhang,et al.  Paving the Road to Exascale with Many-Task Computing , 2013 .