On 02/26/2016 12:04 PM, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Dan Williams
<dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
> [ adding Thanu ]
>
>> Very few applications actually care about atomic sector writes.
>> Databases are probably the only class of application that really do
>> care about both single sector and multi-sector atomic write
>> behaviour, and many of them can be configured to assume single
>> sector writes can be torn.
>>
>> Torn user data writes have always been possible, and so pmem does
>> not introduce any new semantics that applications have to handle.
>>
I know about BTT and DAX only at a conceptual level and hence do not understand
this mailing thread fully. But I can provide examples of important applications
expecting atomicity at a 512B or a smaller granularity. Here is a list:
(1) LMDB [1] that Dan mentioned, which expects "linear writes" (i.e.,
don't
need atomicity, but need the first byte to be written before the second byte)
(2) PostgreSQL expects atomicity [2]
(3) SQLite depends on linear writes [3] (we were unable to find these
dependencies during our testing, however). Also, PSOW in SQLite is not relevant
to this discussion as I understand it; PSOW deals with corruption of data
*around* the actual written bytes.
(4) We found that ZooKeeper depends on atomicity during our testing, but we did
not contact the ZooKeeper developers about this. Some details in our paper [4].
It is tempting to assume that applications do not use the concept of disk
sectors and deal with only file-system blocks (which are not atomic in
practice), and take measures to deal with the non-atomic file-system blocks.
But, in reality, applications seem to assume that 512B (more or less) sectors
are atomic or linear, and build their consistency mechanisms around that.
This all discussion is a shock to me. where were these guys hiding, under a rock?
In the NFS world you can get not torn sectors but torn words. You may have
reorder of writes, you may have data holes the all deal. Until you get back
a successful sync nothing is guarantied. It is not only a client
crash but also a network breach, and so on. So you never know what can happen.
So are you saying all these applications do not run on NFS?
Thanks
Boaz