html5-img
1 / 35

Prof. Seok-Bum Ko

EE898.02 Architecture of Digital Systems Lecture 3: I/O Introduction and A Little Queueing Theory. Prof. Seok-Bum Ko. Motivation: Who Cares About I/O?. CPU Performance: 60% per year I/O system performance limited by mechanical delays (disk I/O) < 10% per year (IO per sec)

dalton-morin
Download Presentation

Prof. Seok-Bum Ko

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EE898.02Architecture of Digital SystemsLecture 3: I/O Introduction and A Little Queueing Theory Prof. Seok-Bum Ko

  2. Motivation: Who Cares About I/O? • CPU Performance: 60% per year • I/O system performance limited by mechanical delays (disk I/O) < 10% per year (IO per sec) • Amdahl's Law: system speed-up limited by the slowest part! 10% IO & 10x CPU => 5x Performance (lose 50%) 10% IO & 100x CPU => 10x Performance (lose 90%) • I/O bottleneck: Diminishing fraction of time in CPU Diminishing value of faster CPUs

  3. I/O Systems interrupts Processor Cache Memory - I/O Bus Main Memory I/O Controller I/O Controller I/O Controller Graphics Disk Disk Network

  4. Storage Technology Drivers • Driven by the prevailing computing paradigm • 1950s: migration from batch to on-line processing • 1990s: migration to ubiquitous computing • computers in phones, books, cars, video cameras, … • nationwide fiber optical network with wireless tails • Effects on storage industry: • Embedded storage • smaller, cheaper, more reliable, lower power • Data utilities • high capacity, hierarchically managed storage

  5. Inner Track Outer Track Sector Head Arm Platter Actuator Disk Device Terminology • Several platters, with information recorded magnetically on both surfaces (usually) • Bits recorded in tracks, which in turn divided into sectors (e.g., 512 Bytes) • Actuator moves head (end of arm,1/surface) over track (“seek”), select surface, wait for sector rotate under head, then read or write • “Cylinder”: all tracks under heads

  6. { Platters (12) Photo of Disk Head, Arm, Actuator Spindle Arm Head Actuator

  7. Disk Device Performance Inner Track Outer Track Sector Head Controller Arm Spindle • Disk Latency = Seek Time + Rotation Time + Transfer Time + Controller Overhead • Seek Time? depends on no. tracks move arm, seek speed of disk • Rotation Time? depends on speed disk rotates, how far sector is from head • Transfer Time? depends on data rate (bandwidth) of disk (bit density), size of request Platter Actuator

  8. Data Rate: Inner vs. Outer Tracks • To keep things simple, originally kept same number of sectors per track • Since outer track longer, lower bits per inch • Competition  decided to keep BPI the same for all tracks (“constant bit density”)  More capacity per disk  More of sectors per track towards edge  Since disk spins at constant speed, outer tracks have faster data rate • Bandwidth outer track 1.7X inner track! • Inner track highest density, outer track lowest, so not really constant • 2.1X length of track outer / inner, 1.7X bits outer / inner

  9. Response time = Queue + Controller + Seek + Rot + Xfer Service time Devices: Magnetic Disks Track Sector • Purpose: • Long-term, nonvolatile storage • Large, inexpensive, slow level in the storage hierarchy • Characteristics: • Seek Time (~8 ms avg) • positional latency • rotational latency • Transfer rate • 10-40 MByte/sec • Blocks • Capacity • Gigabytes • Quadruples every 2 years (aerodynamics) Cylinder Platter Head 7200 RPM = 120 RPS => 8 ms per rev ave rot. latency = 4 ms 128 sectors per track => 0.25 ms per sector 1 KB per sector => 16 MB / s

  10. Disk Performance Model /Trends • Capacity + 100%/year (2X / 1.0 yrs) • Transfer rate (BW) + 40%/year (2X / 2.0 yrs) • Rotation + Seek time – 8%/ year (1/2 in 10 yrs) • MB/$ > 100%/year (2X / 1.0 yrs) Fewer chips + areal density

  11. Latency = Queuing Time + Controller time + Seek Time + Rotation Time + Size / Bandwidth { per access + per byte State of the Art: Barracuda 180 Track • 181.6 GB, 3.5 inch disk • 12 platters, 24 surfaces • 24,247 cylinders • 7,200 RPM; (4.2 ms avg. latency) • 7.4/8.2 ms avg. seek (r/w) • 64 to 35 MB/s (internal) • 0.1 ms controller time • 10.3 watts (idle) Sector Cylinder Track Buffer Arm Platter Head source: www.seagate.com

  12. Areal Density • Bits recorded along a track • Metric is Bits Per Inch (BPI) • Number of tracks per surface • Metric is Tracks Per Inch (TPI) • Disk Designs Brag about bit density per unit area • Metric is Bits Per Square Inch • Called Areal Density • Areal Density =BPI x TPI

  13. Historical Perspective • 1956 IBM Ramac — early 1970s Winchester • Developed for mainframe computers, proprietary interfaces • Steady shrink in form factor: 27 in. to 14 in • Form factor and capacity drives market, more than performance • 1970s: Mainframes  14 inch diameter disks • 1980s: Minicomputers,Servers  8”,5 1/4” diameter • PCs, workstations Late 1980s/Early 1990s: • Mass market disk drives become a reality • industry standards: SCSI, IPI, IDE • Pizzabox PCs  3.5 inch diameter disks • Laptops, notebooks  2.5 inch disks • Palmtops didn’t use disks, so 1.8 inch diameter disks didn’t make it • 2000s: • 1 inch for cameras, cell phones?

  14. Disk History Data density Mbit/sq. in. Capacity of Unit Shown Megabytes 1973: 1. 7 Mbit/sq. in 140 MBytes 1979: 7. 7 Mbit/sq. in 2,300 MBytes source: New York Times, 2/23/98, page C3, “Makers of disk drives crowd even more data into even smaller spaces”

  15. Disk History 1989: 63 Mbit/sq. in 60,000 MBytes 1997: 1450 Mbit/sq. in 2300 MBytes 1997: 3090 Mbit/sq. in 8100 MBytes source: New York Times, 2/23/98, page C3, “Makers of disk drives crowd even more data into even smaller spaces”

  16. 1 inch disk drive! • 2000 IBM MicroDrive: • 1.7” x 1.4” x 0.2” • 1 GB, 3600 RPM, 5 MB/s, 15 ms seek • Digital camera, PalmPC? • 2006 MicroDrive? • 9 GB, 50 MB/s! • Assuming it finds a niche in a successful product • Assuming past trends continue

  17. Fallacy: Use Data Sheet “Average Seek” Time • Manufacturers needed standard for fair comparison (“benchmark”) • Calculate all seeks from all tracks, divide by number of seeks => “average” • Real average would be based on how data laid out on disk, where seek in real applications, then measure performance • Usually, tend to seek to tracks nearby, not to random track • Rule of Thumb: observed average seek time is typically about 1/4 to 1/3 of quoted seek time (i.e., 3X-4X faster)

  18. Fallacy: Use Data Sheet Transfer Rate • Manufacturers quote the speed off the data rate off the surface of the disk • Sectors contain an error detection and correction field (can be 20% of sector size) plus sector number as well as data • There are gaps between sectors on track • Rule of Thumb: disks deliver about 3/4 of internal media rate (1.3X slower) for data

  19. Tape vs. Disk • • Longitudinal tape uses same technology as hard disk; tracks its density improvements • Disk head flies above surface, tape head lies on surface • Disk fixed, tape removable • • Inherent cost-performance based on geometries: • fixed rotating platters with gaps • (random access, limited area, 1 media / reader) vs. • removable long strips wound on spool • (sequential access, "unlimited" length, multiple / reader) • • Helical Scan (VCR, Camcoder, DAT) Spins head at angle to tape to improve density

  20. Current Drawbacks to Tape • Tape wear out: • Helical 100s of passes to 1000s for longitudinal • Head wear out: • 2000 hours for helical • Both must be accounted for in economic / reliability model • Bits stretch • Readers must be compatible with multiple generations of media • Long rewind, eject, load, spin-up times; not inherent, just no need in marketplace • Designed for archival

  21. Library vs. Storage • Getting books today as quaint as the way WE learned to program • punch cards, batch processing • wander thru shelves, anticipatory purchasing • Cost $1 per book to check out • $30 for a catalogue entry • 30% of all books never checked out • Write only journals? • Digital library can transform campuses

  22. Use Arrays of Small Disks? • Katz and Patterson asked in 1987: • Can smaller disks be used to close gap in performance between disks and CPUs? Conventional: 4 disk designs 3.5” 5.25” 10” 14” High End Low End Disk Array: 1 disk design 3.5”

  23. Advantages of Small Formfactor Disk Drives Low cost/MB High MB/volume High MB/watt Low cost/Actuator Cost and Environmental Efficiencies

  24. Redundant Arrays of (Inexpensive) Disks • Files are "striped" across multiple disks • Redundancy yields high data availability • Availability: service still provided to user, even if some components failed • Disks will still fail • Contents reconstructed from data redundantly stored in the array  Capacity penalty to store redundant info  Bandwidth penalty to update redundant info

  25. RAID • Fundamental to RAID is “striping”, a method of concatenating multiple drives into one logical storage unit. • RAID-0: not redundant • RAID-1: by writing all data to two or more drives. “mirroring” • RAID-2: Hamming error correction codes • RAID-3: striping data at a byte level across several drives, with parity stored on one drive • RAID-4: striping data at a block level across several drives, with parity stored on one drive • RAID-5: similar to level 4, but distributes parity among the drives

  26. Introduction to Queueing Theory • More interested in long term, steady state than in startup => Arrivals = Departures • Little’s Law: Mean number tasks in system = arrival rate x mean response time • Observed by many, Little was first to prove • Applies to any system in equilibrium, as long as nothing in black box is creating or destroying tasks Arrivals Departures

  27. System server Queue Proc IOC Device A Little Queuing Theory: Notation • Queuing models assume state of equilibrium: input rate = output rate • Notation: r average number of arriving customers/secondTser average time to service a customer (traditionally µ(avg. service rate) = 1/ Tser)u server utilization (0..1): u = r x Tser Tq average time/customer in queue Tsys average time/customer in system: Tsys = Tq + TserLq average length of queue: Lq = r x Tq Lsys average length of system: Lsys = r x Tsys • Little’s Law: Lengthserver = rate x Timeserver (Mean number customers = arrival rate x mean service time)

  28. System server Queue Proc IOC Device A Little Queuing Theory • Service time completions vs. waiting time for a busy server: randomly arriving event joins a queue of arbitrary length when server is busy, otherwise serviced immediately • Unlimited length queues key simplification • A single server queue: combination of a servicing facility that accommodates 1 customer at a time (server) + waiting area (queue): together called a system • Server spends a variable amount of time with customers; how do you characterize variability? • Distribution of a random variable: histogram? curve?

  29. System server Queue Proc IOC Device A Little Queuing Theory • Server spends variable amount of time with customers • Weighted mean m1 = (f1 x T1 + f2 x T2 +...+ fn x Tn)/F (F=f1 + f2...), where Ti is the time for task i and Fi is the frequency of i • variance = (f1 x T12 + f2 x T22 +...+ fn x Tn2)/F – m12 • Must keep track of unit of measure (100 ms2 vs. 0.1 s2 ) • Squared coefficient of variance: C2 = variance/m12 • Unitless measure (100 ms2 vs. 0.1 s2) • Exponential distribution C2 = 1: most short relative to average, few others long; 90% < 2.3 x average, 63% < average • Hypoexponential distributionC2 < 1: most close to average, C2=0.5 => 90% < 2.0 x average, only 57% < average • Hyperexponential distributionC2 > 1: further from average C2 =2.0 => 90% < 2.8 x average, 69% < average Avg.

  30. System server Queue Proc IOC Device A Little Queuing Theory: Variable Service Time • Server spends a variable amount of time with customers • Weighted mean m1 = (f1xT1 + f2xT2 +...+ fnxTn)/F (F=f1+f2+...) • Usually pick C = 1.0 for simplicity • Another useful value is average time must wait for server to complete task: m1(z) • Not just 1/2 x m1 because doesn’t capture variance • Can derive m1(z) = 1/2 x m1 x (1 + C2) • No variance => C2 = 0 => m1(z) = 1/2 x m1

  31. A Little Queuing Theory:Average Wait Time • Calculating average wait time in queue Tq • If something at server, it takes to complete on average m1(z) • Chance server is busy = u; average delay is u x m1(z) • All customers in line must complete; each avg Tser Tq = uxm1(z) + Lq x Ts er= 1/2 x ux Tser x (1 + C) + Lq x Ts er Tq = 1/2 x uxTs er x (1 + C) + r x Tq x Ts er Tq = 1/2 x uxTs er x (1 + C) + u x TqTqx (1 – u) = Ts er x u x (1 + C) /2Tq = Ts er x u x (1 + C) / (2 x (1 – u)) • Notation: r average number of arriving customers/secondTser average time to service a customeru server utilization (0..1): u = r x TserTq average time/customer in queueLq average length of queue:Lq= r x Tq

  32. A Little Queuing Theory: M/G/1 and M/M/1 • Assumptions so far: • System in equilibrium, number sources of requests unlimited • Time between two successive arrivals in line are exponentially distrib. • Server can start on next customer immediately after prior finishes • No limit to the queue: works First-In-First-Out "discipline" • Afterward, all customers in line must complete; each avg Tser • Described “memoryless” or Markovian request arrival (M for C=1 exponentially random), General service distribution (no restrictions), 1 server: M/G/1 queue • When Service times have C = 1, M/M/1 queueTq = Tser x u x (1 + C) /(2 x (1 – u)) = Tser x u / (1 – u) Tser average time to service a customeru server utilization (0..1): u = r x TserTq average time/customer in queue

  33. A Little Queuing Theory: An Example • processor sends 10 x 8KB disk I/Os per second, requests & service exponentially distrib., avg. disk service = 20 ms • On average, how utilized is the disk? • What is the number of requests in the queue? • What is the average time spent in the queue? • What is the average response time for a disk request? • Notation: r average number of arriving customers/second = 10Tser average time to service a customer = 20 ms (0.02s)u server utilization (0..1): u = r x Tser= 10/s x .02s = 0.2Tq average time/customer in queue = Tser x u / (1 – u) = 20 x 0.2/(1-0.2) = 20 x 0.25 = 5 ms (0 .005s)Tsys average time/customer in system: Tsys =Tq +Tser= 25 msLq average length of queue:Lq= r x Tq= 10/s x .005s = 0.05 requests in queueLsys average # tasks in system: Lsys = r x Tsys = 10/s x .025s = 0.25

  34. A Little Queuing Theory: Another Example • processor sends 20 x 8KB disk I/Os per sec, requests & service exponentially distrib., avg. disk service = 12 ms • On average, how utilized is the disk? • What is the number of requests in the queue? • What is the average time a spent in the queue? • What is the average response time for a disk request? • Notation: r average number of arriving customers/second= 20Tser average time to service a customer= 12 msu server utilization (0..1): u = r x Tser= /s x .s = Tq average time/customer in queue = Ts er x u / (1 – u) = x /() = x = msTsys average time/customer in system: Tsys =Tq +Tser= 16 msLq average length of queue:Lq= r x Tq= /s x s = requests in queueLsys average # tasks in system : Lsys = r x Tsys = /s xs =

  35. A Little Queuing Theory: Another Example • processor sends 20 x 8KB disk I/Os per sec, requests & service exponentially distrib., avg. disk service = 12 ms • On average, how utilized is the disk? • What is the number of requests in the queue? • What is the average time a spent in the queue? • What is the average response time for a disk request? • Notation: r average number of arriving customers/second= 20Tser average time to service a customer= 12 msu server utilization (0..1): u = r x Tser= 20/s x .012s = 0.24Tq average time/customer in queue = Ts er x u / (1 – u) = 12 x 0.24/(1-0.24) = 12 x 0.32 = 3.8 msTsys average time/customer in system: Tsys =Tq +Tser= 15.8 msLq average length of queue:Lq= r x Tq= 20/s x .0038s = 0.076 requests in queueLsys average # tasks in system : Lsys = r x Tsys = 20/s x .016s = 0.32

More Related