On the State of Linux File Systems

kev009 writes to recommend his editorial overview of the past, present and future of Linux file systems: ext2, ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, JFS, Reiser4, ext4, Btrfs, and Tux3. "In hindsight it seems somewhat tragic that JFS or even XFS didn't gain the traction that ext3 did to pull us through the 'classic' era, but ext3 has proven very reliable and has received consistent care and feeding to keep it performing decently. ... With ext4 coming out in kernel 2.6.28, we should have a nice holdover until Btrfs or Tux3 begin to stabilize. The Btrfs developers have been working on a development sprint and it is likely that the code will be merged into Linus's kernel within the next cycle or two."

Comments

ZFS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What Sun needs to do is release ZFS under a proper license so we can finally have 1 unified filesystem. Yes, we can use it under FUSE, but this brings unnecessary overhead and problems. It will be nice when we can transport disks around, similar to fat(32), and not have to worry about whether another OS will be able to read it or not. On top of that, CRC block checksumming, high performance, smb/nfs/iscsi support integrated, Volume AND partition manager.

Come on Sun! Are you listening??

Re:ZFS!!

[dokebi]

UFS (of BSDs) is under the most liberal license possible, yet it's definitely not the most widely used. FAT32 is patented by MS, and it is the most widely used. So, do you still think the problem is GPL?

Re:ZFS!!

[atrus]

Because having a block based filesystem that has no notion of what the underlying storage is "dumb". ZFS fixes those problems.

Want to create a new filesystem in ZFS? Sure, no problem. You don't even need to specify a size, it will use whatever space the storage pool has available, no pre-allocation needed. How about removing one? Ok, its removed. Yes, it only took a second to do that. A traditional LVM + FS system can't do that - you need to resize, move, and tweak filesystems when doing any of the above operations - time consuming and limited.

And if you're asking why you'd want to create and remove filesystems on the fly, there is one word for that: snapshots. Its quite feasible to generate snapshots many times per day for a ZFS backed fileserver (or even database server). Someone created a file at 9am and then accidentally nuked it before lunch? Don't worry, its still present in the 10am and 11am snapshots. All online, instantly available.

Re:ZFS!!

[ArbitraryConstant]

> But hey maybe I'm missing something, why not improve or create a replacement for LVM instead of including volume management in the filesystem?

Maybe. But it would be a lot harder.

Think about LVM snapshots for example. LVM allocates a chunk of the disk for your filesystem, and then a chunk of disk for your snapshot. When something changes in the parent filesystem, the original contents of that block are first copied to the snapshot. But if you've got two snapshots, it has to be copied to two places, and each snapshot needs its own space to store the original data. Because ZFS/BTRFS/etc are unified, they can keep the original data for any number of snapshots by the simple expedient of leaving it alone and writing the new data someplace new.

LVMs can grow/shrink filesystems, but filesystems deal with this somewhat grudgingly. LVM lacks a way to handle dynamic allocation of blocks to filesystems in such a way that they can give them back dynamically when they're not using them. ZFS/BTRFS/etc can do this completely on the fly. LVMs rely on an underlying RAID layer to handle data integrity, but most RAID doesn't do this very well. BTRFS is getting a feature that allows it to handle seeky metadata differently than data (eg, use an SSD as a fast index into slow but large disks).

It is conceivable that an advanced volume manager could be created that does all these things and all the rest (eg checksumming) just as well... but I think the key point is that this isn't something you can do without a *much* richer API for filesystems talking to block devices. They'd need to be able to free up blocks they don't need anymore, and have a way to handle fragmentation when both the filesystem and the volume manager would try to allocate blocks efficiently. They'd need substantially improved RAID implementations, or they'd need to bring the checksumming into the volume manager. I'm not saying it can't be done, but doing it as well as ZFS/BTRFS/etc when you're trying to preserve layering would be very tough. At a minimum you'd need new or substantially updated filesystems and a new volume manager of comparable complexity to ZFS/BTRFS/etc. I understand the preference for a layered approach, but I just don't think it's competitive here.

Re:ZFS!!

[Kent Recal]

I hear you and I'm sure the filesystem developers have the same ideas in their heads.
The problem is that there are some really hard problems involved with these things.

In the end everybody wants basically the same thing: A volume that we can write files to.
This volume should live on a pool of physical disks to which we can add and remove disks at will and during runtime.

The unused space should always be used for redundancy, so when our volume is 50% full then we'd expect that 50% of the disks (no matter which) can safely fail at any time without data loss.

Furthermore we don't really want to care about any of these things. We just want to push physical disks into our server, or pull them, and the pool should grow/shrink automagically.
And ofcourse we want to always be able to split a pool into more volumes, as long as there's free space in the pool we're splitting from. Ideally without losing redundancy in the process.

We want all these things and on top we want maximum IOPS and maximum linear read/write performance in any situation. Oh, and we won't really be happy until a pool can span multiple physical machines (that will auto re-sync after a network split and work-as-expected over really slow and unrealiable networks), too.

ZFS is a huge step forward in many of these regards and there's a whole industry built solely around these problems.
Only time will tell which of these goals (and the ones that I omitted here) can really be achieved and how many of them can be addressed in a single filesystem.

Problems: IO priority, large #s of files.

[bboxman]

Just my 2 bits. As a user of Linux in a software/algorithm context, my personal beefs with ext3 / the current kernel line are:

1) IO priority isn't linked to to process priority, or at least, not in a decent manner. it is all too easy to lock up the system with one process that is IO heavy (or a multiple of these) -- hurting even high priority processes. As the IO call is handled by a system level (handling buffering, etc.) -- it garners a relatively high priority (possibly falling under the RT scheduler) and as a result IO heavy processes can choke other processes.

2) ext3+nfs simply sucks with very large amount of files. I used to routinely have directories with 500,000 files (very easy to reach such amounts with a cartesian multiplication of options). The result is simply downright appalling performance.

Re:Problems: IO priority, large #s of files.

[tytso]

NFS semantics require that the data be stably written on disk before it can be client's RPC request can be acknowledged. This can cause some very nasty performance problems. One of the things that can help is to use a second hard drive to store an external journal. Since the journal is only written during normal operation (you need it when you recover after an system crash), and the writes are contiguous on disk, this eliminates nearly all of the seek delays associated with the journal. If you use data journalling, so that data blocks are written to the journal, the fact that no writes are required means that the data can be written onto stable storage very quickly, and thus will accelerate your NFS clients. If you want things to go _really_ fast, use a battery-backed NVRAM for your external journal device.

still doing fs on top of RAID :-(

[r00t]

We're checksumming free disk space. That's dumb.
It makes RAID rebuilds needlessly slow.

We're unable to adjust redundancy according to
the value that we place on our data. Everything
from the root directory to the access time stamps
gets the same level of redundancy.

The on-disk structure of RAID (the lack of it!)
prevents reasonable recovery. We can handle a
disk that disappears, but not one that gets
some blocks corrupted. We can't even detect it
in normal use; that requires reading all disks.
We have extremely limited transactional ability.
All we get for transactions is a write barrier.
There is no way to map from RAID troubles (not
that we'd detect them) to higher-level structures.

With an integrated system, we could do so much
better. Sadly, it's blocked by an odd sort of
kernel politics. Radical change is hard. Giving
of the simplicity of a layered approach is hard,
even when obviously inferior. There is this idea
that every new kernel component has to fit into
the existing mold, even if the mold is defective.

Re:still doing fs on top of RAID :-(

[Piranhaa]

That's the goal of ZFS. Each block is checked with a 256-bit CRC checksum on every access. It incorporates a volume and partition manager in '1 tool', and knows where data is written to. On rebuilds it only repairs data that is actually there, which saves significant time. You should also setup weekly or bi-weekly scrubs (once a month for enterprise grade drives), which reads EVERY block written to and verifies it. This ensures that each block is still good, none is suffering from flipped bits, and that your disk isn't slowly failing on you.

Reiser4

[Enderandrew]

Hans was a jerk who has difficult to work with, and now he is a convicted murderer. That doesn't change the fact that Reiser4 as is may be the best desktop file system for Linux users, even with plenty of room for improvement.

There are filesystems in development like Btrfs and Tux3 that look promising, but why should Reiser4 be abandoned? It is GPL. Anyone can pick it up and maintain it, or fork it.

Does anyone know anything about the future of Reiser4?

Re:Reiser4

[Ant P.]

Reiser4 is still being maintained, by one ex-Namesys person IIRC.
The main problem is the Linux kernel devs - they were too busy trying to find reasons to keep it out of the kernel (I can agree with their complaints about code formatting, but after that they descend deep into BS-land) to actually improve it. From the outside it sounds a lot like the story about the RSDL scheduler - completely snubbed because it stepped on the toes of one kernel dev and his pet project.

Re:The article is incorrect with respect to ext4..

[Kadin2048]

using meta data or magic number to determine file format would have the same drawback. how would you determine the format of a file at a glance using meta data? you wouldn't have a safe/accurate and intuitive means of determining file type.

I don't think that there is a 100% "safe and accurate" way to display the file type, assuming you are depending on a possibly-hostile file to supply the information in the first place. There are, however, a few things that an operating system can do to make life safer for users:

1) Clearly mark executable files. Have some visual indication whether a file is set to be executable (this, of course, assumes that your operating system has an execute bit; if it doesn't, that's a bigger problem). This indication should be consistent, universal, and impossible to override with metadata or custom icons. It should apply both to CLI shells and GUIs. (Although not necessarily in the exact same way; however my personal preference for such an indicator, which is putting the file name in bold, would work both in a GUI and CLI environment.)

2) Don't use the same action to execute as to open. Using the same action (the double-click) both to "run" and to "open" -- which are two very different actions -- is probably responsible for the vast majority of user-propagated malware today. I would love to see an operating system rigorously enforce a separate 'run' action, so that a user clicking on what appears or claims to be a data file (intending to open an application and read that file) could not accidentally execute it.

3) Break the filesystem into 'data' and 'executable' sections, and bar files on the 'data' sections from being marked as executable under any circumstances. I don't think this would be as effective as #2, but it would probably involve less user retraining. In order for content to be executed, it would have to be copied or installed onto the executable partition (which in normal operation could even be mounted read-only).

You could do all of this with the data-type indicator as part of the file name, or as a separate piece of metadata; it doesn't really matter. There's no 'safety' advantage to doing it either way, it's just that keeping it in the file name is considered very ugly by a lot of people (myself included). I'm personally a fan of the way that the Mac used to do it, with a two part code (one for the file's actual type, the other for the application that either created it or should be used to open it), except that unlike the Mac, it should be easily editable by the user, and a lot of standardization and interoperability challenges would have to be solved. I'll be surprised if I see the filename.ext thing die in my lifetime, honestly. It's just too entrenched.