 |
sections
home
features
from the editors
opinion
interview
toolkit
issue index
news
forums
about us
about queue
advisory board
media kit
about ACM
privacy policy
writers guidelines
feedback
|
|
You Don't Know Jack about Disks
|
The Most Pressing Issue and what else Might Change
The last vestige of that old geometric model for disk drives is the fixed 512-byte
sector. This still maps directly to the physical unit written to the media. It
is probably what drive manufacturers would most like to get rid of next.
The use of error correction codes is an important drive component for protecting
data and ensuring that it can be recovered from a disk and returned accurately.
ECC information is appended to each 512-byte sector of data. This additional information
means that a little more disk space is required to store the information. As data
bits have become smaller, flaws have become effectively larger—that is,
each flaw can corrupt more bits. The ECCs that enable the drive to recover from
these flaws have had to become longer, from perhaps 16 bytes of ECC per sector
in 1995 to more than double that today. To continue increasing areal density,
it will get longer yet. To minimize the proportion of disk space dedicated to
ECC overhead, drive vendors universally desire a longer sector size—4,096
bytes is the proposed length. Whereas the work required to support 4K sectors
in a drive is straightforward, the difficulty of getting the rest of the computer
system to employ it is daunting. It is not clear when this might happen, but companies
are already investigating the OS and driver problems.
Some research argues for exciting future changes in the programming model, including
hiding the physical sector size from the host altogether. Exposing the geometry
of a drive to the host operating system in a useful way is impossible, because
it is subject to change and variation. When a specific method for laying out files
is being determined, however, knowledge of the exact drive geometry, including
information such as flaw location, would benefit performance.
One of the motives behind object-based storage device (OSD) research by the Storage
Networking Industry Association (SNIA) and the T10 Technical Committee of the
International Committee of Information Technology Standards is the recognition
that the drive could be assigned the responsibility for organizing the information
storage space [refer to "Working Project Draft T10/1355-D Revision 06 Information
Technology—SCSI Object-Based Storage Device Commands (OSD)," Ralph
Weber, editor, Aug. 2, 2002]. It could then employ an exact geometric model, because
it understands the unique specifics of its three-dimensional space and could in
theory allocate data intelligently based on that knowledge. OSD would also solve
the long-sector problem; it completely abstracts the underlying drive format by
transferring data in byte lengths.
Security is a growing concern among users. OSD research advocates an appealing
security model. Recent research at MIT found that a significant amount of sensitive
data could still be recovered from drives that had been "erased" and
discarded ["Selling a computer? Be sure to erase hard drive files,"
by Justin Pope, Minneapolis Tribune, Jan. 20, 2003]. OSD includes a security model
that would marry the security policy to the data at the drive level. Special information
such as a unique password would always be required to decode the information stored
on the media. Because the data cannot be separated from the security control,
this sort of vulnerability could be avoided.
Concurrency control is another area of research that could have implications with respect to the programming model.
Two projects suggest that the drive, because it is at the point of convergence for accesses from multiple systems, could help make clusters more scalable [see "Scalable Concurrency Control and Recovery for Shared Storage Arrays," by Khalil Amiri, Garth Gibson, and Richard Golding, CMU-CS-99-111, February 1999; and "The Global File System," by Steven R. Soltis, Thomas M. Ruwart, and Matthew T. O'Keefe, Proceedings of the Fifth NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Conference on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies, Sept. 17-19, 1996].
Other examples include applications for disk locks such as fencing and revocation of access rights.
Seagate and other drive manufacturers have participated in several aspects of this ongoing research, and most feel that many of these ideas are worthwhile candidates for future disk-drive architectures.
| | |