7 ms·
From the Blog post: > We looked at this issue earlier. Fundamentally the tension here is that copy-on-write semantics don’t fit with the emerging zone interfac
by j-pb 7y ago
From the Blog post:
> We looked at this issue earlier. Fundamentally the tension here is that copy-on-write semantics don’t fit with the emerging zone interface semantics.
While the paper writes:
> It is not surprising that attempts to modify
production file systems, such as XFS and ext4, to work with
the zone interface have so far been unsuccessful [19, 68],
primarily because these are overwrite file systems, whereas
the zone interface requires a copy-on-write approach to data
management
This seems to be a contradiction, and I'd side with the original paper.
- ZoomZoomZoom 7y agoYes, found it strange too. The third quote block directly states that copy-on-write design is encouraged by the current hardware.
- psds2 7y agoZone interface is specifically good at log structured CoW is what it says. Later they talk about how they tried using a write ahead log but that it does not work well for managing metadata in a distributed filesystem.