netdev - Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performance.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 15:03:40 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
CC:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover,
 performance.

Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi Sage.
> 
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:35:19AM -0700, Sage Weil (sage@...dream.net) wrote:
>>>> What is your opinion of the Paxos algorithm?
>>> It is slow. But it does solve failure cases.
>> For writes, Paxos is actually more or less optimal (in the non-failure 
>> cases, at least).  Reads are trickier, but there are ways to keep that 
>> fast as well.  FWIW, Ceph extends basic Paxos with a leasing mechanism to 
>> keep reads fast, consistent, and distributed.  It's only used for cluster 
>> state, though, not file data.
> 
> Well, it depends... If we are talking about single node perfromance,
> then any protocol, which requries to wait for authorization (or any
> approach, which waits for acknowledge just after data was sent) is slow.

Quite true, but IMO single-node performance is largely an academic 
exercise today.  What production system is run without backups or 
replication?

> If we are talking about agregate parallel perfromance, then its basic
> protocol with 2 messages is (probably) optimal, but still I'm not
> convinced, that 2 messages case is a good choise, I want one :)

I think part of Paxos' attraction is that it is provably correct for the 
chosen goal, which historically has not been true for hand-rolled 
consensus algorithms often found these days.

There are a bunch of variants (fast paxos, byzantine paxos, fast 
byzantine paxos, etc., etc.) based on Classical Paxos which make 
improvements in the performance/latency areas.  There is even a Paxos 
Commit which appears to be more efficient than the standard transaction 
two-phase commit used by several existing clustered databases.

	Jeff

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html