The process-flow model: examining I/O performance from the system's point of view

Input/output subsystem performance is currently receiving considerable research attention. Significant effort has been focused on reducing average I/O response times and increasing throughput for a given workload. This work has resulted in tremendous advances in I/O subsystem performance. It is unclear, however, how these improvements will be reflected in overall system performance. The central problem lies in the fact that the current method of study tends to treat all I/O requests aa equally important. We introduce a three class taxonomy of I/O requests based on their effects on system performance. We denote the three classes time-critical, time-limited, and time-noncritical. A system-level, trace-driven simulation model has been developed for the purpose of studying disk scheduling algorithms. By incorporating knowledge of I/O classes, algorithms tuned for system performance rather than I/O subsystem performance may be developed. Traditional I/O subsystem simulators would rate such algorithms unfavorably because they produce suboptimal subsystem performance. By studying the I/O subsystem via global, system-level simulation, one can more easily identify changes that will improve overall system performance.

[1]  Philip H. Seaman,et al.  Simulating Operating Systems , 1969, IBM Syst. J..

[2]  Toby J. Teorey,et al.  A comparative analysis of disk scheduling policies , 1972, CACM.

[3]  Toby J. Teorey,et al.  A comparative analysis of disk scheduling policies , 1972, CACM.

[4]  We-Min Chow,et al.  A Performance Model of MVS , 1978, IBM Syst. J..

[5]  R. S. Fabry,et al.  A fast file system for UNIX , 1984, TOCS.

[6]  Robert S. Fabry,et al.  A fast file system for UNIX , 1984, TOCS.

[7]  Michelle Y. Kim,et al.  Synchronized Disk Interleaving , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[8]  Bruce McNutt An Empirical Study of Variations in DASD Volume Activity , 1986, Int. CMG Conference.

[9]  Robert Geist,et al.  A continuum of disk scheduling algorithms , 1987, TOCS.

[10]  Robert G. Reynolds,et al.  Disk scheduling in System V , 1987, SIGMETRICS '87.

[11]  S. Zhou,et al.  A Trace-Driven Simulation Study of Dynamic Load Balancing , 1987, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[12]  Songnian Zhou A Trace-Driven Simulation Study of Dynamic Load Balancing , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[13]  John K. Ousterhout,et al.  Why Aren't Operating Systems Getting Faster As Fast as Hardware? , 1990, USENIX Summer.

[14]  Peter L. Haigh An Event Tracing Method for UNIX Performance Measurement , 1990, Int. CMG Conference.

[15]  Margo I. Seltzer,et al.  Disk Scheduling Revisited , 1990 .

[16]  John Wilkes,et al.  Disk scheduling algorithms based on rotational position , 1991 .

[17]  Mary Baker,et al.  Measurements of a distributed file system , 1991, SOSP '91.

[18]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Input/output behavior of supercomputing applications , 1991, Proceedings of the 1991 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (Supercomputing '91).

[19]  Steve R. Kleiman,et al.  Extent-like Performance from a UNIX File System , 1991, USENIX Winter.

[20]  Sanjeev Setia,et al.  Analysis of the Periodic Update Write Policy For Disk Cache , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[21]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  TIME: Tools for Input/output and Memory Evaluation , 1992, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[22]  John Wilkes,et al.  UNIX Disk Access Patterns , 1993, USENIX Winter.

[23]  Sanjeev Setia,et al.  Optimal Write Batch Size in Log-Structured File Systems , 1994, Comput. Syst..

[24]  IEEE Transactions on Computers , Computing in Science & Engineering.