Conquest FS: "The Disk Is Dead"
andfarm writes "A few days ago, I sat in at a presentation of a what seems to be a new file system concept: Conquest. Apparently they've developed a FS that stores all the metadata and a lot of the small files in battery-backed RAM. (No, not flash-RAM. That'd be stupid.) According to benchmarks, it's almost as fast as ramfs. Impressive." The page linked above is actually more of a summary page - there's some good .ps research reports in there.
The idea of RAM as storage is great and all, but can we work towards the elimination of STORAGE as RAM before we get to RAM as storage?
I mean, why *DO* we still have pagefiles?
A MS Gripe: I seriously don't understand why I can't turn it off completely. With multiple GB of RAM dirt cheap, writing to a disk pagefile slows my system down-- It has to!
I've predicted and eagerly anticipated the demise (by replacement) of spinning media (magnetic and optical) for 10 or more years now... I've predicted it will happen, not when.
As this new filesystem implicitly admits, the price/MB is still so much dramatically lower for HDD's than solid state memory, it will still take quite a will for this replacement to happen.
I disagree that some small killer app must come along to make this happen. Yes, solid state media is coming down in cost and increasing in density, but both need to change by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude before the HDD is dead. What we're waiting for here is the classis convergence of technology and its applications... the apps won't some until the technology can support it and the tech is driven by our demand for it. Expect another 10 years at least.
This was also pointed on Saturday's Slashdot Story
Though I don't think it's a useful general-purpose concept to have a RAM-only FS, I'm hoping that fast RAM will catch up to magnetic disks in size. A standard FS/VM will end up caching everything if the RAM is available. I seem to recall that ext3 on Linux, if given the RAM for cache, is faster than many ramfs/tmpfs implementations. Plan9 completely removes the concept of a permanent filesystem versus temporary memory. Everything is mapped in memory, and everything is saved to disk (eventually). It's a neat concept, and it happens to go very well with 64-bit pointers and cheap RAM.
I'm hoping that hardware people will realize that we need huge amounts of fast memory...whether or not we think we need it. We're stuck in a "why would I need more RAM than the applications I run need?" kind of mindset. I think that the sudden freedom 64-bit pointers will provide to software developers will result in a paradigm shift in how memory (both permanent and temporary) is used. Though like all paradigm shifts, it's difficult to predict ahead of time exactly what the change will be like...
True, and that narrowing will have occurred by the time the cost/density ratio of SSM has improved by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.
A couple of reasons I see the death of the HDD to be not-to-imminent:
(1) Those damned HDD makers keep pulling new physics out of their as^H^H hats and keep pushing the storage densities to rediculous new levels.
(2) the solid state memory of the future ainta gonna be Flash as we know it now (with slow and limit write cycles) and it also will not be battery-backed RAM (unless we go write it all back to disk for 'permanent' storage at some point). I bet on some variation on today's Flash without its limitations, but the tech has got some ground to make before this all happens.
My other long-term prediction has been that CRTs (vacuum tube, for pete's sake!) will be replaced with LCD or similar tech and we're getting really close.
I've predicted and eagerly anticipated the demise (by replacement) of spinning media (magnetic and optical) for 10 or more years now... I've predicted it will happen, not when.
You may have to keep predicting for some time yet. So far, nobody has managed to come up with a solid-state approach that gets anywhere close to the cost of spinning media, and though solid state gets cheaper over time, spinning media does too.
For the most part, posters to this thread missed the point of this effort. The authors observed that some relatively small portion of filesystem data - the metadata - accounts for a disproportionate amount of the IO traffic. So put just that part in battery-backed ram, and get better performance. Hopefully, the increased performance will outweigh the cost of the extra RAM.
The fly in the ointment is that, in the case where there's a small amount of metadata compared to file data, the cost of transferring the metadata isn't that much. But when there's a lot of metadata, it won't all fit in NVRAM. Oops, it's not as big a gain as you'd first think.
It's surprising how well Ext2 does compared to RAMFS and ConquestFS in the author's benchmarks.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?