DOC PREVIEW
Berkeley COMPSCI 162 - Lecture 24 Distributed File Systems

This preview shows page 1-2-3 out of 8 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 8 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 8 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 8 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 8 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

CS162Operating Systems andSystems ProgrammingLecture 24Distributed File SystemsNovember 26, 2007Prof. John Kubiatowiczhttp://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs162Lec 24.211/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007Review: Distributed Applications• Message Abstraction: send/receive messages– Already atomic: no receiver gets portion of a message and two receivers cannot get same message• Interface:– Mailbox (mbox): temporary holding area for messages» Includes both destination location and queue– Send(message,mbox)» Send message to remote mailbox identified by mbox– Receive(buffer,mbox)» Wait until mbox has message, copy into buffer, and return» If threads sleeping on this mbox, wake up one of them• Two-phase commit: distributed decision making– First, make sure everyone guarantees that they will commit if asked (prepare)– Next, ask everyone to commitNetworkSendReceiveLec 24.311/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007Review: Distributed Decision Making Discussion• Why is distributed decision making desirable?– Fault Tolerance!– A group of machines can come to a decision even if one or more of them fail during the process» Simple failure mode called “failstop” (different modes later)– After decision made, result recorded in multiple places• Undesirable feature of Two-Phase Commit: Blocking– One node can tie up the others– Alternative: There are alternatives such as “Three Phase Commit” which don’t have this blocking problem• What happens if one or more of the nodes is malicious?– Malicious: attempting to compromise the decision making– Question: is it possible to make a good decision despite the presence of malicious nodes?Lec 24.411/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007Goals for Today• Byzantine Agreement• Remote Procedure Call• Examples of Distributed File Systems• Cache Coherence ProtocolsNote: Some slides and/or pictures in the following areadapted from slides ©2005 Silberschatz, Galvin, and Gagne. Slides on Testing from George Necula (CS169)Many slides generated from my lecture notes by Kubiatowicz.Lec 24.511/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007Byzantine General’s Problem• Byazantine General’s Problem (n players):– One General– n-1 Lieutenants– Some number of these (f) can be insane or malicious• The commanding general must send an order to his n-1 lieutenants such that:– IC1: All loyal lieutenants obey the same order– IC2: If the commanding general is loyal, then all loyal lieutenants obey the order he sendsGeneralAttack!Attack!Attack!Retreat!Attack!Retreat!Attack!Attack!Attack!LieutenantLieutenantLieutenantMalicious!Lec 24.611/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007Byzantine General’s Problem (con’t)• Impossibility Results:– Cannot solve Byzantine General’s Problem with n=3 because one malicious player can mess up things– With f faults, need n > 3f to solve problem• Various algorithms exist to solve problem– Original algorithm has #messages exponential in n– Newer algorithms have message complexity O(n2)» One from MIT, for instance (Castro and Liskov, 1999)• Use of BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerance) algorithm– Allow multiple machines to make a coordinated decision even if some subset of them (< n/3 ) are maliciousGeneralLieutenantLieutenantAttack! Attack!Retreat!GeneralLieutenantLieutenantAttack! Retreat!Retreat!RequestDistributedDecisionLec 24.711/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007Remote Procedure Call• Raw messaging is a bit too low-level for programming– Must wrap up information into message at source– Must decide what to do with message at destination– May need to sit and wait for multiple messages to arrive• Better option: Remote Procedure Call (RPC)– Calls a procedure on a remote machine– Client calls: remoteFileSystem→Read(“rutabaga”);– Translated automatically into call on server:fileSys→Read(“rutabaga”);• Implementation:– Request-response message passing (under covers!)– “Stub” provides glue on client/server» Client stub is responsible for “marshalling” arguments and “unmarshalling” the return values» Server-side stub is responsible for “unmarshalling”arguments and “marshalling” the return values.• Marshalling involves (depending on system)– Converting values to a canonical form, serializing objects, copying arguments passed by reference, etc. Lec 24.811/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007RPC Information FlowClient(caller)Server(callee)PacketHandlerPacketHandlercallreturnsendreceivesendreceivereturncallNetworkNetworkClientStubbundleargsbundleret valsunbundleret valsServerStubunbundleargsMachine AMachine Bmbox1mbox2Lec 24.911/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007RPC Details• Equivalence with regular procedure call– Parameters ⇔ Request Message– Result ⇔ Reply message– Name of Procedure: Passed in request message– Return Address: mbox2 (client return mail box) • Stub generator: Compiler that generates stubs– Input: interface definitions in an “interface definition language (IDL)”» Contains, among other things, types of arguments/return– Output: stub code in the appropriate source language» Code for client to pack message, send it off, wait for result, unpack result and return to caller» Code for server to unpack message, call procedure, pack results, send them off• Cross-platform issues:– What if client/server machines are different architectures or in different languages?» Convert everything to/from some canonical form» Tag every item with an indication of how it is encoded (avoids unnecessary conversions).Lec 24.1011/26/07Kubiatowicz CS162 ©UCB Fall 2007RPC Details (continued)• How does client know which mbox to send to?– Need to translate name of remote service into network endpoint (Remote machine, port, possibly other info)– Binding: the process of converting a user-visible name into a network endpoint» This is another word for “naming” at network level» Static: fixed at compile time» Dynamic: performed at runtime• Dynamic Binding– Most RPC systems use dynamic binding via name service» Name service provides dynamic translation of service→mbox– Why dynamic binding?» Access control: check who is permitted to access service» Fail-over: If server fails, use a different one• What if there are multiple servers?– Could give flexibility at binding time» Choose unloaded server for each new client– Could provide same mbox (router level redirect)»


View Full Document

Berkeley COMPSCI 162 - Lecture 24 Distributed File Systems

Documents in this Course
Lecture 1

Lecture 1

12 pages

Nachos

Nachos

41 pages

Security

Security

39 pages

Load more
Download Lecture 24 Distributed File Systems
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Lecture 24 Distributed File Systems and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Lecture 24 Distributed File Systems 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?