The Linear Tape File System

Pease, David; Amir, Arnon; Real, Lucas Villa; Biskeborn, Brian; Richmond, M.; Abe, Atsushi

doi:10.1109/msst.2010.5496989

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…can process, resulting in the archival of that data for eventual processing -akin to situations faced by large scientific organizations (Murray et al 2012) and renowned projects such as the Large Hadron Collider (Cavalli et al 2010). Finally, we remark that tapes are key components of distributed computing-based storage solutions (Prakash et al 2013) and are used for online reading and writing of data files (Real et al 2015) just like more popular removable media types (Pease et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Online Algorithms for the Linear Tape Scheduling Problem

Cardonha

Real

2016

ICAPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even in today’s world of increasingly faster storage technologies, magnetic tapes continue to play an essential role in the market. Yet, they are often overlooked in the literature, despite the many changes made to the underlying tape architecture since they were conceived. In this article, we introduce the LINEAR TAPE SCHEDULING PROBLEM (LTSP), which aims to identify scheduling strategies for read and write operations in single-tracked magnetic tapes that minimize the overall response times for read requests. Structurally, LTSP has many similarities with versions of the Travelling Repairman Problem and of the Dial-a-Ride Problem restricted to the real line. We investigate several properties of LTSP and show how they can be explored in the design of algorithms for the online version of the problem. Computational experiments show that the resulting strategies deliver very satisfactory scheduling plans, which in most cases are clearly superior (potentially differing by one order of magnitude) to those produced by a strategy currently used in the industry.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Online Algorithms for the Linear Tape Scheduling Problem

Cardonha

Real

2016

ICAPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our new Linear Tape File System (LTFS) [7] implements a POSIX-compliant [5] file system using LTO-5 dual-partition The LTFS technology consists of two major components: an on-tape index format, and a file system implementation. The tape index is written to the smaller partition dedicated to that purpose, while the data is written to the larger partition that occupies the remainder of the tape.…”

Section: Lto Tapes and The Linear Tape File System (Ltfs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

File-based media workflows using ltfs tapes

Amir

Pease

Richter

et al. 2010

Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While digital video cameras have existed for over two decades, digital video cassettes are still the primary storage medium in professional video archives. One of the major inhibitors in the transition to file-based workflows and media archives is the lack of an affordable, portable and archive compatible storage medium for the vast amounts of content produced.We address this need by a) defining the Linear Tape File System (LTFS) tape format for storing files, file properties, hierarchical directories and extended attributes; b) building file system software that allows LTFS tapes to be used in the same way as portable storage devices and c) leveraging LTFS to create efficient file-based media workflows.In the exhibit we present LTFS on LTO-5 (Linear Tape Open, Gen 5) tapes. We demonstrate file-based workflows with storyboards, video proxies and partial video restore of MXF (Material Exchange Format) professional video content. LTFS on LTO-5 tape can be 20 times higher in capacity, 10 times faster and 40 times cheaper than digital video cassette media. Furthermore, it combines the benefits of tape-based and file-based workflows. The new tape format streamlines file-based production, from video capture and transport to long-term archive. The tape format and file system implementation are available as open source.

show abstract

“…Some tried to bring parts of file systems to user space as specialized solutions [49,60] or port to Windows [2]. (4) Perhaps the greatest endorsement, an increasing number of companies rely on user-space implementations for their storage products: IBM'S GPFS [47] and LTFS [43], Nimble Storage's CASL [41], Apache's HDFS [4], Google File System [26], RedHat's GlusterFS [46], Data Domain's deduplication file system [63], and more. Some implement file systems in user space to store data online in clouds using services such as Google Drive, Amazon S3 [45], and DropBox [38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance and Resource Utilization of FUSE User-Space File Systems

Vangoor¹,

Agarwal

Mathew

et al. 2019

ACM Trans. Storage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, file systems were implemented as part of operating systems kernels, which provide a limited set of tools and facilities to a programmer. As the complexity of file systems grew, many new file systems began being developed in user space. Low performance is considered the main disadvantage of user-space file systems but the extent of this problem has never been explored systematically. As a result, the topic of user-space file systems remains rather controversial: while some consider user-space file systems a "toy" not to be used in production, others develop full-fledged production file systems in user space. In this article, we analyze the design and implementation of a well-known user-space file system framework, FUSE, for Linux. We characterize its performance and resource utilization for a wide range of workloads. We present FUSE performance and also resource utilization with various mount and configuration options, using 45 different workloads that were generated using Filebench on two different hardware configurations. We instrumented FUSE to extract useful statistics and traces, which helped us analyze its performance bottlenecks and present our analysis results. Our experiments indicate that depending on the workload and hardware used, performance degradation (throughput) caused by FUSE can be completely imperceptible or as high as −83%, even when optimized; and latencies of FUSE file system operations can be increased from none to 4× when compared to Ext4. On the resource utilization side, FUSE can increase relative CPU utilization by up to 31% and underutilize disk bandwidth by as much as −80% compared to Ext4, though for many data-intensive workloads the impact was statistically indistinguishable. Our conclusion is that user-space file systems can indeed be used in production (non-"toy") settings, but their applicability depends on the expected workloads.

show abstract

The Linear Tape File System

Cited by 18 publications

References 1 publication

Online Algorithms for the Linear Tape Scheduling Problem

Online Algorithms for the Linear Tape Scheduling Problem

File-based media workflows using ltfs tapes

Performance and Resource Utilization of FUSE User-Space File Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About