4 ms·
There's also some interest in making eBPF the standard for computational storage [1]: offloading processing to the SSD controller itself. Many vendors have foun
by wtallis 6y ago
There's also some interest in making eBPF the standard for computational storage [1]: offloading processing to the SSD controller itself. Many vendors have found that it's easy to add a few extra ARM cores or some fixed-function accelerators to a high-end enterprise SSD controller, but the software ecosystem is lacking and fragmented.
This work may be a very complementary approach. Using eBPF to move some processing into the kernel should make it easier to later move it off the CPU entirely and into the storage device itself.
[1] https://nvmexpress.org/bringing-compute-to-storage-with-nvm-express/ https://nvmexpress.org/bringing-compute-to-storage-with-nvm-...
- toolslive 6y agowasn't it the other way around ? The vendors got extra cores from their suppliers and started asking themselves what to do with them?
- wtallis 6y agoBy "vendors", I meant drive and controller vendors rather than server/appliance vendors. They're looking for ways to differentiate their products and offer more value add, but extending an SSD's functionality beyond mere block storage (potentially with transparent compression or encryption) requires a lot of buy-in from end users who need to write software to use such capabilities.
- toolslive 6y agoI meant the Seagates and WD's from this world. Around 2014 they also had HDDs with an extra core, where I suspect they just got that for free from they supplier with the message "look, we stopped making these single core CPUs anymore, here's a dual core for the same price".
- monocasa 6y agoWD and Seagate are their chip vendors. They design their own custom SoCs.
- toolslive 6y agoIn case of Seagate's Kinetic Drives, one core was used by the controller, the other 'extra' CPU was used to manage a Key value store on the driver. These were ARM processors. I don't think they make these themselves.
- monocasa 6y agoYou would be wrong. I work with guys who used to do SoC design for both Seagate and WD. This is how WD was able to jump to RiscV so quickly; they didn't have any suppliers they needed to negotiate with, and the market for CortexR style in order, single issue, fully pipelined real time cores is sort of a commodity.
- toolslive 6y agoWell, that's why I was asking. Thx!
- hinkley 6y agoCan I get Postgres running on a RAID controller while we’re at it?
- lambda_obrien 6y agoImagine an SSD serving up query responses! I love it.
- wmf 6y agoNot too far from Netezza.
- lucasvr_br 6y agoSamsung's SmartSSD comes with a Xilinx FPGA accelerator that can be used to execute code without having to move data outside the device. And their open source SDK includes domain-specific routines including databases. See https://xilinx.github.io/Vitis_Libraries/ https://xilinx.github.io/Vitis_Libraries/ for details on their software stack.
- sp332 6y agoIt's not SQL, but Samsung made a Key Value SSD that uses short keys instead of "addresses" to index blocks of data.
- jhayward 6y agoIt's been done.
- nynx 6y agoI'd prefer it to use spirv or wasm. eBPF is intentionally an extremely limited language.
- KMag 6y agoBut trivially provable termination is really nice property if you don't want to need your hypervisor to trust every guest kernel.
- benlwalker 6y agoeBPF the bytecode is not particularly limited. You can parse complex formats like Arrow or Parquet even. The Linux kernel overlays a verifier on top which adds all sorts of draconian restrictions (for good reason). When people talk of eBPF they don't always mean to include the Linux verifier limitations as well. In particular, that nvmexpress working group link in the parent post does not say one way or the other.
- nynx 6y agoWhy not use a different bytecode that is already more common, in that case?
- monocasa 6y agoBecause ebpf is designed for verification under constrained circumstances like kernels, but allowing easy JITing that's almost a 1 to 1 translation. Stuff like not doing register allocation, being 2 address, etc.
- mgerdts 6y agoThe draft spec is here: https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/technical_work/PublicReview/SNIA-Computational-Storage-Architecture-and-Programming-Model-0.5R1.pdf https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/technical_work/Publ...
- pjmlp 6y agoSo basically back to SCSI.
- wtallis 6y agoI'm not seeing any new parallels to SCSI, beyond the similarities that have long existed between NVMe and SCSI. What kind of programmable functionality over SCSI are you referring to?
- pjmlp 6y agoSCSI uses their own controllers that receive a set of commands and take it from there for the data retrieval operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCSI_command
- wtallis 6y agoSCSI uses simple fixed command sets, the same as standard NVMe drives. As far as I'm aware, SCSI doesn't have any way to chain commands together, so you can't really do anything more complex than predefined commands like copy or compare and write. It's nothing at all analogous to an actual programmable offload engine like you'd get with eBPF, and all the semi-advanced SCSI commands that are actually applicable to SSDs already have equivalents in the base NVMe command set.