mirror of https://github.com/ceph/ceph
587 lines
26 KiB
ReStructuredText
587 lines
26 KiB
ReStructuredText
===============
|
||
PoseidonStore
|
||
===============
|
||
|
||
Key concepts and goals
|
||
======================
|
||
|
||
* As one of the pluggable backend stores for Crimson, PoseidonStore targets only
|
||
high-end NVMe SSDs (not concerned with ZNS devices).
|
||
* Designed entirely for low CPU consumption
|
||
|
||
- Hybrid update strategies for different data types (in-place, out-of-place) to
|
||
minimize CPU consumption by reducing host-side GC.
|
||
- Remove a black-box component like RocksDB and a file abstraction layer in BlueStore
|
||
to avoid unnecessary overheads (e.g., data copy and serialization/deserialization)
|
||
- Utilize NVMe feature (atomic large write command, Atomic Write Unit Normal).
|
||
Make use of io_uring, new kernel asynchronous I/O interface, to selectively use the interrupt
|
||
driven mode for CPU efficiency (or polled mode for low latency).
|
||
* Sharded data/processing model
|
||
|
||
Background
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
Both in-place and out-of-place update strategies have their pros and cons.
|
||
|
||
* Log-structured store
|
||
|
||
Log-structured based storage system is a typical example that adopts an update-out-of-place approach.
|
||
It never modifies the written data. Writes always go to the end of the log. It enables I/O sequentializing.
|
||
|
||
* Pros
|
||
|
||
- Without a doubt, one sequential write is enough to store the data
|
||
- It naturally supports transaction (this is no overwrite, so the store can rollback
|
||
previous stable state)
|
||
- Flash friendly (it mitigates GC burden on SSDs)
|
||
* Cons
|
||
|
||
- There is host-side GC that induces overheads
|
||
|
||
- I/O amplification (host-side)
|
||
- More host-CPU consumption
|
||
|
||
- Slow metadata lookup
|
||
- Space overhead (live and unused data co-exist)
|
||
|
||
* In-place update store
|
||
|
||
The update-in-place strategy has been used widely for conventional file systems such as ext4 and xfs.
|
||
Once a block has been placed in a given disk location, it doesn't move.
|
||
Thus, writes go to the corresponding location in the disk.
|
||
|
||
* Pros
|
||
|
||
- Less host-CPU consumption (No host-side GC is required)
|
||
- Fast lookup
|
||
- No additional space for log-structured, but there is internal fragmentation
|
||
* Cons
|
||
|
||
- More writes occur to record the data (metadata and data section are separated)
|
||
- It cannot support transaction. Some form of WAL required to ensure update atomicity
|
||
in the general case
|
||
- Flash unfriendly (Give more burdens on SSDs due to device-level GC)
|
||
|
||
Motivation and Key idea
|
||
-----------------------
|
||
|
||
In modern distributed storage systems, a server node can be equipped with multiple
|
||
NVMe storage devices. In fact, ten or more NVMe SSDs could be attached on a server.
|
||
As a result, it is hard to achieve NVMe SSD's full performance due to the limited CPU resources
|
||
available in a server node. In such environments, CPU tends to become a performance bottleneck.
|
||
Thus, now we should focus on minimizing host-CPU consumption, which is the same as the Crimson's objective.
|
||
|
||
Towards an object store highly optimized for CPU consumption, three design choices have been made.
|
||
|
||
* **PoseidonStore does not have a black-box component like RocksDB in BlueStore.**
|
||
|
||
Thus, it can avoid unnecessary data copy and serialization/deserialization overheads.
|
||
Moreover, we can remove an unnecessary file abstraction layer, which was required to run RocksDB.
|
||
Object data and metadata is now directly mapped to the disk blocks.
|
||
Eliminating all these overheads will reduce CPU consumption (e.g., pre-allocation, NVME atomic feature).
|
||
|
||
* **PoseidonStore uses hybrid update strategies for different data size, similar to BlueStore.**
|
||
|
||
As we discussed, both in-place and out-of-place update strategies have their pros and cons.
|
||
Since CPU is only bottlenecked under small I/O workloads, we chose update-in-place for small I/Os to minimize CPU consumption
|
||
while choosing update-out-of-place for large I/O to avoid double write. Double write for small data may be better than host-GC overhead
|
||
in terms of CPU consumption in the long run. Although it leaves GC entirely up to SSDs,
|
||
|
||
* **PoseidonStore makes use of io_uring, new kernel asynchronous I/O interface to exploit interrupt-driven I/O.**
|
||
|
||
User-space driven I/O solutions like SPDK provide high I/O performance by avoiding syscalls and enabling zero-copy
|
||
access from the application. However, it does not support interrupt-driven I/O, which is only possible with kernel-space driven I/O.
|
||
Polling is good for low-latency but bad for CPU efficiency. On the other hand, interrupt is good for CPU efficiency and bad for
|
||
low-latency (but not that bad as I/O size increases). Note that network acceleration solutions like DPDK also excessively consume
|
||
CPU resources for polling. Using polling both for network and storage processing aggravates CPU consumption.
|
||
Since network is typically much faster and has a higher priority than storage, polling should be applied only to network processing.
|
||
|
||
high-end NVMe SSD has enough powers to handle more works. Also, SSD lifespan is not a practical concern these days
|
||
(there is enough program-erase cycle limit [#f1]_). On the other hand, for large I/O workloads, the host can afford process host-GC.
|
||
Also, the host can garbage collect invalid objects more effectively when their size is large
|
||
|
||
Observation
|
||
-----------
|
||
|
||
Two data types in Ceph
|
||
|
||
* Data (object data)
|
||
|
||
- The cost of double write is high
|
||
- The best method to store this data is in-place update
|
||
|
||
- At least two operations required to store the data: 1) data and 2) location of
|
||
data. Nevertheless, a constant number of operations would be better than out-of-place
|
||
even if it aggravates WAF in SSDs
|
||
|
||
* Metadata or small data (e.g., object_info_t, snapset, pg_log, and collection)
|
||
|
||
- Multiple small-sized metadata entries for an object
|
||
- The best solution to store this data is WAL + Using cache
|
||
|
||
- The efficient way to store metadata is to merge all metadata related to data
|
||
and store it though a single write operation even though it requires background
|
||
flush to update the data partition
|
||
|
||
|
||
Design
|
||
======
|
||
.. ditaa::
|
||
|
||
+-WAL partition-|----------------------Data partition-------------------------------+
|
||
| Sharded partition |
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| WAL -> | | Super block | Freelist info | Onode radix tree info| Data blocks |
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| Sharded partition 2
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| WAL -> | | Super block | Freelist info | Onode radix tree info| Data blocks |
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| Sharded partition N
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| WAL -> | | Super block | Freelist info | Onode radix tree info| Data blocks |
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| Global information (in reverse order)
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| Global WAL -> | | SB | Freelist | |
|
||
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
|
||
|
||
* WAL
|
||
|
||
- Log, metadata and small data are stored in the WAL partition
|
||
- Space within the WAL partition is continually reused in a circular manner
|
||
- Flush data to trim WAL as necessary
|
||
* Disk layout
|
||
|
||
- Data blocks are metadata blocks or data blocks
|
||
- Freelist manages the root of free space B+tree
|
||
- Super block contains management info for a data partition
|
||
- Onode radix tree info contains the root of onode radix tree
|
||
|
||
|
||
I/O procedure
|
||
-------------
|
||
* Write
|
||
|
||
For incoming writes, data is handled differently depending on the request size;
|
||
data is either written twice (WAL) or written in a log-structured manner.
|
||
|
||
#. If Request Size ≤ Threshold (similar to minimum allocation size in BlueStore)
|
||
|
||
Write data and metadata to [WAL] —flush—> Write them to [Data section (in-place)] and
|
||
[Metadata section], respectively.
|
||
|
||
Since the CPU becomes the bottleneck for small I/O workloads, in-place update scheme is used.
|
||
Double write for small data may be better than host-GC overhead in terms of CPU consumption
|
||
in the long run
|
||
#. Else if Request Size > Threshold
|
||
|
||
Append data to [Data section (log-structure)] —> Write the corresponding metadata to [WAL]
|
||
—flush—> Write the metadata to [Metadata section]
|
||
|
||
For large I/O workloads, the host can afford process host-GC
|
||
Also, the host can garbage collect invalid objects more effectively when their size is large
|
||
|
||
Note that Threshold can be configured to a very large number so that only the scenario (1) occurs.
|
||
With this design, we can control the overall I/O procedure with the optimizations for crimson
|
||
as described above.
|
||
|
||
* Detailed flow
|
||
|
||
We make use of a NVMe write command which provides atomicity guarantees (Atomic Write Unit Power Fail)
|
||
For example, 512 Kbytes of data can be atomically written at once without fsync().
|
||
|
||
* stage 1
|
||
|
||
- if the data is small
|
||
WAL (written) --> | TxBegin A | Log Entry | TxEnd A |
|
||
Append a log entry that contains pg_log, snapset, object_infot_t and block allocation
|
||
using NVMe atomic write command on the WAL
|
||
- if the data is large
|
||
Data partition (written) --> | Data blocks |
|
||
* stage 2
|
||
|
||
- if the data is small
|
||
No need.
|
||
- if the data is large
|
||
Then, append the metadata to WAL.
|
||
WAL --> | TxBegin A | Log Entry | TxEnd A |
|
||
|
||
* Read
|
||
|
||
- Use the cached object metadata to find out the data location
|
||
- If not cached, need to search WAL after checkpoint and Object meta partition to find the
|
||
latest meta data
|
||
|
||
* Flush (WAL --> Data partition)
|
||
|
||
- Flush WAL entries that have been committed. There are two conditions
|
||
(1. the size of WAL is close to full, 2. a signal to flush).
|
||
We can mitigate the overhead of frequent flush via batching processing, but it leads to
|
||
delaying completion.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Crash consistency
|
||
------------------
|
||
|
||
* Large case
|
||
|
||
#. Crash occurs right after writing Data blocks
|
||
|
||
- Data partition --> | Data blocks |
|
||
- We don't need to care this case. Data is not allocated yet. The blocks will be reused.
|
||
#. Crash occurs right after WAL
|
||
|
||
- Data partition --> | Data blocks |
|
||
- WAL --> | TxBegin A | Log Entry | TxEnd A |
|
||
- Write procedure is completed, so there is no data loss or inconsistent state
|
||
|
||
* Small case
|
||
|
||
#. Crash occurs right after writing WAL
|
||
|
||
- WAL --> | TxBegin A | Log Entry| TxEnd A |
|
||
- All data has been written
|
||
|
||
|
||
Comparison
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
* Best case (pre-allocation)
|
||
|
||
- Only need writes on both WAL and Data partition without updating object metadata (for the location).
|
||
* Worst case
|
||
|
||
- At least three writes are required additionally on WAL, object metadata, and data blocks.
|
||
- If the flush from WAL to the data partition occurs frequently, radix tree onode structure needs to be update
|
||
in many times. To minimize such overhead, we can make use of batch processing to minimize the update on the tree
|
||
(the data related to the object has a locality because it will have the same parent node, so updates can be minimized)
|
||
|
||
* WAL needs to be flushed if the WAL is close to full or a signal to flush.
|
||
|
||
- The premise behind this design is OSD can manage the latest metadata as a single copy. So,
|
||
appended entries are not to be read
|
||
* Either best of the worst case does not produce severe I/O amplification (it produce I/Os, but I/O rate is constant)
|
||
unlike LSM-tree DB (the proposed design is similar to LSM-tree which has only level-0)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Detailed Design
|
||
===============
|
||
|
||
* Onode lookup
|
||
|
||
* Radix tree
|
||
Our design is entirely based on the prefix tree. Ceph already makes use of the characteristic of OID's prefix to split or search
|
||
the OID (e.g., pool id + hash + oid). So, the prefix tree fits well to store or search the object. Our scheme is designed
|
||
to lookup the prefix tree efficiently.
|
||
|
||
* Sharded partition
|
||
A few bits (leftmost bits of the hash) of the OID determine a sharded partition where the object is located.
|
||
For example, if the number of partitions is configured as four, The entire space of the hash in hobject_t
|
||
can be divided into four domains (0x0xxx ~ 0x3xxx, 0x4xxx ~ 0x7xxx, 0x8xxx ~ 0xBxxx and 0xCxxx ~ 0xFxxx).
|
||
|
||
* Ondisk onode
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: c
|
||
|
||
struct onode {
|
||
extent_tree block_maps;
|
||
b+_tree omaps;
|
||
map xattrs;
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
onode contains the radix tree nodes for lookup, which means we can search for objects using tree node information in onode.
|
||
Also, if the data size is small, the onode can embed the data and xattrs.
|
||
The onode is fixed size (256 or 512 byte). On the other hands, omaps and block_maps are variable-length by using pointers in the onode.
|
||
|
||
.. ditaa::
|
||
|
||
+----------------+------------+--------+
|
||
| on\-disk onode | block_maps | omaps |
|
||
+----------+-----+------------+--------+
|
||
| ^ ^
|
||
| | |
|
||
+-----------+---------+
|
||
|
||
|
||
* Lookup
|
||
The location of the root of onode tree is specified on Onode radix tree info, so we can find out where the object
|
||
is located by using the root of prefix tree. For example, shared partition is determined by OID as described above.
|
||
Using the rest of the OID's bits and radix tree, lookup procedure find outs the location of the onode.
|
||
The extent tree (block_maps) contains where data chunks locate, so we finally figure out the data location.
|
||
|
||
|
||
* Allocation
|
||
|
||
* Sharded partitions
|
||
|
||
The entire disk space is divided into several data chunks called sharded partition (SP).
|
||
Each SP has its own data structures to manage the partition.
|
||
|
||
* Data allocation
|
||
|
||
As we explained above, the management infos (e.g., super block, freelist info, onode radix tree info) are pre-allocated
|
||
in each shared partition. Given OID, we can map any data in Data block section to the extent tree in the onode.
|
||
Blocks can be allocated by searching the free space tracking data structure (we explain below).
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
+-----------------------------------+
|
||
| onode radix tree root node block |
|
||
| (Per-SP Meta) |
|
||
| |
|
||
| # of records |
|
||
| left_sibling / right_sibling |
|
||
| +--------------------------------+|
|
||
| | keys[# of records] ||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| | | start onode ID |||
|
||
| | | ... |||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| +--------------------------------||
|
||
| +--------------------------------+|
|
||
| | ptrs[# of records] ||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| | | SP block number |||
|
||
| | | ... |||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| +--------------------------------+|
|
||
+-----------------------------------+
|
||
|
||
* Free space tracking
|
||
The freespace is tracked on a per-SP basis. We can use extent-based B+tree in XFS for free space tracking.
|
||
The freelist info contains the root of free space B+tree. Granularity is a data block in Data blocks partition.
|
||
The data block is the smallest and fixed size unit of data.
|
||
|
||
::
|
||
|
||
+-----------------------------------+
|
||
| Free space B+tree root node block |
|
||
| (Per-SP Meta) |
|
||
| |
|
||
| # of records |
|
||
| left_sibling / right_sibling |
|
||
| +--------------------------------+|
|
||
| | keys[# of records] ||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| | | startblock / blockcount |||
|
||
| | | ... |||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| +--------------------------------||
|
||
| +--------------------------------+|
|
||
| | ptrs[# of records] ||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| | | SP block number |||
|
||
| | | ... |||
|
||
| | +-----------------------------+||
|
||
| +--------------------------------+|
|
||
+-----------------------------------+
|
||
|
||
* Omap and xattr
|
||
In this design, omap and xattr data is tracked by b+tree in onode. The onode only has the root node of b+tree.
|
||
The root node contains entries which indicate where the key onode exists.
|
||
So, if we know the onode, omap can be found via omap b+tree.
|
||
|
||
* Fragmentation
|
||
|
||
- Internal fragmentation
|
||
|
||
We pack different types of data/metadata in a single block as many as possible to reduce internal fragmentation.
|
||
Extent-based B+tree may help reduce this further by allocating contiguous blocks that best fit for the object
|
||
|
||
- External fragmentation
|
||
|
||
Frequent object create/delete may lead to external fragmentation
|
||
In this case, we need cleaning work (GC-like) to address this.
|
||
For this, we are referring the NetApp’s Continuous Segment Cleaning, which seems similar to the SeaStore’s approach
|
||
Countering Fragmentation in an Enterprise Storage System (NetApp, ACM TOS, 2020)
|
||
|
||
.. ditaa::
|
||
|
||
|
||
+---------------+-------------------+-------------+
|
||
| Freelist info | Onode radix tree | Data blocks +-------+
|
||
+---------------+---------+---------+-+-----------+ |
|
||
| | |
|
||
+--------------------+ | |
|
||
| | |
|
||
| OID | |
|
||
| | |
|
||
+---+---+ | |
|
||
| Root | | |
|
||
+---+---+ | |
|
||
| | |
|
||
v | |
|
||
/-----------------------------\ | |
|
||
| Radix tree | | v
|
||
+---------+---------+---------+ | /---------------\
|
||
| onode | ... | ... | | | Num Chunk |
|
||
+---------+---------+---------+ | | |
|
||
+--+ onode | ... | ... | | | <Offset, len> |
|
||
| +---------+---------+---------+ | | <Offset, len> +-------+
|
||
| | | ... | |
|
||
| | +---------------+ |
|
||
| | ^ |
|
||
| | | |
|
||
| | | |
|
||
| | | |
|
||
| /---------------\ /-------------\ | | v
|
||
+->| onode | | onode |<---+ | /------------+------------\
|
||
+---------------+ +-------------+ | | Block0 | Block1 |
|
||
| OID | | OID | | +------------+------------+
|
||
| Omaps | | Omaps | | | Data | Data |
|
||
| Data Extent | | Data Extent +-----------+ +------------+------------+
|
||
+---------------+ +-------------+
|
||
|
||
WAL
|
||
---
|
||
Each SP has a WAL.
|
||
The data written to the WAL are metadata updates, free space update and small data.
|
||
Note that only data smaller than the predefined threshold needs to be written to the WAL.
|
||
The larger data is written to the unallocated free space and its onode's extent_tree is updated accordingly
|
||
(also on-disk extent tree). We statically allocate WAL partition aside from data partition pre-configured.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Partition and Reactor thread
|
||
----------------------------
|
||
In early stage development, PoseidonStore will employ static allocation of partition. The number of sharded partitions
|
||
is fixed and the size of each partition also should be configured before running cluster.
|
||
But, the number of partitions can grow as below. We leave this as a future work.
|
||
Also, each reactor thread has a static set of SPs.
|
||
|
||
.. ditaa::
|
||
|
||
+------+------+-------------+------------------+
|
||
| SP 1 | SP N | --> <-- | global partition |
|
||
+------+------+-------------+------------------+
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Cache
|
||
-----
|
||
There are mainly two cache data structures; onode cache and block cache.
|
||
It looks like below.
|
||
|
||
#. Onode cache:
|
||
lru_map <OID, OnodeRef>;
|
||
#. Block cache (data and omap):
|
||
Data cache --> lru_map <paddr, value>
|
||
|
||
To fill the onode data structure, the target onode needs to be retrieved using the prefix tree.
|
||
Block cache is used for caching a block contents. For a transaction, all the updates to blocks
|
||
(including object meta block, data block) are first performed in the in-memory block cache.
|
||
After writing a transaction to the WAL, the dirty blocks are flushed to their respective locations in the
|
||
respective partitions.
|
||
PoseidonStore can configure cache size for each type. Simple LRU cache eviction strategy can be used for both.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Sharded partitions (with cross-SP transaction)
|
||
----------------------------------------------
|
||
The entire disk space is divided into a number of chunks called sharded partitions (SP).
|
||
The prefixes of the parent collection ID (original collection ID before collection splitting. That is, hobject.hash)
|
||
is used to map any collections to SPs.
|
||
We can use BlueStore's approach for collection splitting, changing the number of significant bits for the collection prefixes.
|
||
Because the prefixes of the parent collection ID do not change even after collection splitting, the mapping between
|
||
the collection and SP are maintained.
|
||
The number of SPs may be configured to match the number of CPUs allocated for each disk so that each SP can hold
|
||
a number of objects large enough for cross-SP transaction not to occur.
|
||
|
||
In case of need of cross-SP transaction, we could use the global WAL. The coordinator thread (mainly manages global partition) handles
|
||
cross-SP transaction via acquire the source SP and target SP locks before processing the cross-SP transaction.
|
||
Source and target probably are blocked.
|
||
|
||
For the load unbalanced situation,
|
||
Poseidonstore can create partitions to make full use of entire space efficiently and provide load balaning.
|
||
|
||
|
||
CoW/Clone
|
||
---------
|
||
As for CoW/Clone, a clone has its own onode like other normal objects.
|
||
|
||
Although each clone has its own onode, data blocks should be shared between the original object and clones
|
||
if there are no changes on them to minimize the space overhead.
|
||
To do so, the reference count for the data blocks is needed to manage those shared data blocks.
|
||
|
||
To deal with the data blocks which has the reference count, poseidon store makes use of shared_blob
|
||
which maintains the referenced data block.
|
||
|
||
As shown the figure as below,
|
||
the shared_blob tracks the data blocks shared between other onodes by using a reference count.
|
||
The shared_blobs are managed by shared_blob_list in the superblock.
|
||
|
||
|
||
.. ditaa::
|
||
|
||
|
||
/----------\ /----------\
|
||
| Object A | | Object B |
|
||
+----------+ +----------+
|
||
| Extent | | Extent |
|
||
+---+--+---+ +--+----+--+
|
||
| | | |
|
||
| | +----------+ |
|
||
| | | |
|
||
| +---------------+ |
|
||
| | | |
|
||
v v v v
|
||
+---------------+---------------+
|
||
| Data block 1 | Data block 2 |
|
||
+-------+-------+------+--------+
|
||
| |
|
||
v v
|
||
/---------------+---------------\
|
||
| shared_blob 1 | shared_blob 2 |
|
||
+---------------+---------------+ shared_blob_list
|
||
| refcount | refcount |
|
||
+---------------+---------------+
|
||
|
||
Plans
|
||
=====
|
||
|
||
All PRs should contain unit tests to verify its minimal functionality.
|
||
|
||
* WAL and block cache implementation
|
||
|
||
As a first step, we are going to build the WAL including the I/O procedure to read/write the WAL.
|
||
With WAL development, the block cache needs to be developed together.
|
||
Besides, we are going to add an I/O library to read/write from/to the NVMe storage to
|
||
utilize NVMe feature and the asynchronous interface.
|
||
|
||
* Radix tree and onode
|
||
|
||
First, submit a PR against this file with a more detailed on disk layout and lookup strategy for the onode radix tree.
|
||
Follow up with implementation based on the above design once design PR is merged.
|
||
The second PR will be the implementation regarding radix tree which is the key structure to look up
|
||
objects.
|
||
|
||
* Extent tree
|
||
|
||
This PR is the extent tree to manage data blocks in the onode. We build the extent tree, and
|
||
demonstrate how it works when looking up the object.
|
||
|
||
* B+tree for omap
|
||
|
||
We will put together a simple key/value interface for omap. This probably will be a separate PR.
|
||
|
||
* CoW/Clone
|
||
|
||
To support CoW/Clone, shared_blob and shared_blob_list will be added.
|
||
|
||
* Integration to Crimson as to I/O interfaces
|
||
|
||
At this stage, interfaces for interacting with Crimson such as queue_transaction(), read(), clone_range(), etc.
|
||
should work right.
|
||
|
||
* Configuration
|
||
|
||
We will define Poseidon store configuration in detail.
|
||
|
||
* Stress test environment and integration to teuthology
|
||
|
||
We will add stress tests and teuthology suites.
|
||
|
||
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
||
|
||
.. [#f1] Stathis Maneas, Kaveh Mahdaviani, Tim Emami, Bianca Schroeder: A Study of SSD Reliability in Large Scale Enterprise Storage Deployments. FAST 2020: 137-149
|