1 / 32

Latent Sector Errors In Disk Drives

Latent Sector Errors In Disk Drives. Ahmet Salih BÜYÜKKAYHAN 2007706435 - 2009 Spring. OUTLINE. Motivation Introduction Disk Errors Error Handling Evaluation Conclusion. Motivation.

gurit
Download Presentation

Latent Sector Errors In Disk Drives

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. Latent Sector Errors In Disk Drives Ahmet Salih BÜYÜKKAYHAN 2007706435 - 2009 Spring

  2. OUTLINE • Motivation • Introduction • Disk Errors • Error Handling • Evaluation • Conclusion

  3. Motivation • 90% of all new information producedin the world is being stored on magnetic media mostly hard disk drives • This study analyzes data collected from production storage systems over 32 months across 1.53 million disks • storage system has a built-in, low-overhead mechanism to log important system events back to a central repository • This study can shed light on disk fault prevention, fault tolerance and fault forecasting researches

  4. Introduction - Disk Drives • Mechanical and electronic components • Disk Controller • Electronic component • Convert serial bit stream to block of bytes • perform error correction as necessary

  5. Introduction - Disk Drives • Sectors: the smallest addressable unit of data access, usually 512 bytes in size • Error correcting codes • Linear array ofequal sized blocks eachidentified by a logicalblock number (LBN).

  6. Introduction • Factors other than complete disk failures influence the reliability of data and expressed as mean time to data loss (MTTDL) • Disk drives do not report any latent sector error until theparticular sector is accessed.

  7. DiskDrives FailurePattern • Bad sector errors: manufactoring defects • Seek errors: head can not be positioned in the right track • The disk head needs to be recalibrated • Data Corruption • Lost writes : not write but completion is reported • Misdirected writes: write to the wrong disk block • Torn writes: partially write but completion is reported

  8. Disk Errors • Latent Sector Errors: disk sector cannot be read or written, or uncorrectable ECC error. • Any data previouslystored in the sector is lost. • Requires higher-level mechanisms such as RAID reconstruction • Not-Ready-Condition Errors: Disk drive is not ready to handle a commandfrom the host. • waiting and retrying. • Recovered Errors: Access to a sector required disk-level retry orerror-correction.

  9. Error Handling • Some disks able to re-map automatically • OS can handle bad sectors by re-mapping tables • Constructs a list of bad sectors • Both allocated and free blocks tested

  10. Proactive Error Detection • Media scrubs use a SCSI Verify command to validatea disk sector’s integrity. (ECC) • check of the sector’s content within the disk • A data scrub: to detect datacorruption. • read operations for each disk sector, computes a checksum over its data, • compares the checksum tothe on-disk 8-byte checksum • reconstructs the sectorfrom other disks in the RAID group if the checksum fails • Latent sector errors discovered by data scrubs appear as read errors.

  11. Client IFace (NFS) WAFL®FileSys Autosupport RAID layer Storage layer Disk drives System Architecture • Store, verify block ID (Inode X, offset Y) • Detect identity discrepancy • Lost or misdirected writes • Parity generation • Reconstruction on failure • Data scrubbing • Read blocks, verify parity • Detect parity inconsistency • Lost or misdirected writes, parity miscalculations • Store, verify checksum • Detect checksum mismatch • Bit corruptions, torn writes

  12. RAID – I/O Parallelism • RAID is a set of disks with a single RAID controller • Improve the fault tolerance and performance • Reduce costs • The disks in RAID appear as a single disk to the OS • There are six different RAID organizations (0…5) • RAID level 0 : Strips of size “k-sectors” partitioned into individual disks in round robin fashion • There is no redundant data storage in this approach • No performance gain if the requests are one sector at a time!

  13. RAID • RAID level 1: Duplicates all the disks. • Every strip is written twice! • Either of the two copies could be read! • Write performance is the same • Read performance can be twice as good • Fault tolerance is excellent • Recovery is easy, buy a new drive, and replace it with the one that crashed

  14. RAID • RAID level 2: granularity striping with hamming code for error detection and correction. • Disk drives must be synchronized • RAID level 3:simplified version of level 2, where only parity is stored. • Single disk crash?

  15. RAID • RAID level 4: With a strip of k bytes, an extra disk drive stores k-byte long paritiesconstructed by XOR on the strips in each disk • RAID level 5: Like RAID 4 but parity bits are distributed over the RAID disks to reduce the risk induced by parity disk crash

  16. Stable Storage • RAID deals with correct reads and fault tolerance against crashes • How about writes? • Desired Property: • When a write is issued, the disk either correctly writes the data or it does nothing at all

  17. Stable Storage • Stable storage uses a pair of identical disks with the corresponding blocks form an error-free block • Stable write: • Write the block on drive 1 • Read it back and verify it, if not correct repeat the operation • After n consecutive failures the block is remapped to a spare one and the operation continues • After the write to drive 1 succeeds, the corresponding block on drive 2 is written and re-read until it succeeds • After the stable write completes, the block is successfully written to both drives

  18. Stable Storage • Stable read: • First read from drive 1 • If the ECC indicates and error, then reread • If after n iterations, the error occurs, then the corresponding block is read from drive 2 • Crash recovery • Scan both disks and compare the corresponding blocks • If one of the has ECC error, then the good one is written over the bad one • If both have ECC good, but they are different, then the block in drive 1 is overwritten to drive 2.

  19. Evaluation • Disk class: Enterprise class or nearline disk drives with respectively Fiber Channel and ATA interfaces. • Disk model: Combination of disk family and particular size • Quantum Fireball EX – 6.4 GBDenoted as ‘E-1’ • Disk Age: Amount of time in the field since ship date • Error disk: This term is used to refer to a disk drive thathas at least one latent sector error.

  20. Evaluation • Sample Selection • Model has at least 1000 disks in the field for time period being considered • Model has at least 1000 disks in the field and at least50 error disks for time being considered • Disregard the very few “outlier” disks(0.2% of error disks) with more than 1000 errors to avoidthe skew caused by these numbers • A-E Nearline disks, F-N Enterprise disks. • E-2 have the double disk size according to E-1

  21. Impact of Disk Age • Enterprise disks  Nearline disks • Disk age impact varies across disk models • Nearline disk LSE grows far more rapidly

  22. Impact of Disk Age • AFRs variesfrom 1.7%, for drives that were in their first year of operation,to over 8.6%, observed in the 3-year old

  23. Impact of Disk Size • The amount of probable data loss dueto latent sector errors per Gigabyte does not increase or decrease consistently as disk size increases

  24. Errors per Error Disk • ES&NL areequally likely to develop more than one error once they develop their first error.

  25. Spatial Locality • There is significant locality in the occurrence of latent sector errors across logical sector addresses

  26. Spatial Locality • Use locality radius to measure locality Logical Block Number Space End of disk Beginning ofdisk • 100 Block locality radius • 1000 Block locality radius 100 block: 2/5 errors have 1 neighbor 1000 block: 4/5 errors have 1 neighbor

  27. Temporal Locality • Disks that develop errors beyond thefirst error see most of the additional errors within one month after the first error.

  28. Detection Methods • Media scrubbing detects a large percentage of observed latent sector errors • 86.6% of all LSE in NL and 61.5% of LSE in ES are discovered by verify operations

  29. Conclusion The fraction of disks affected by LSE increases linearly with time for enterprise class disks and superlinearly for nearline disks. The percentage of affected disks depends on many factors, such as the disk drive model, the age of the diskdrive, and the storage capacity of the drive. A disk with a latent sector error is more likely to developanother latent sector error than a disk without an error.

  30. Conclusion • The fraction of disks affected by latent sector errors increases as disk capacity increases • Latent sector errors shows high spatial and temporal locality. • Latent sector errors correlate with notreadycondition errors especially NL. • Latent sector errors also correlate with recovered error warnings especially ES.

  31. References [1] L. Bairavasundaram, G. Goodson, S. Pasupathy, and J. Schindler. An Analysis of Latent Sector Errorsin Disk Drives. In SIGMETRICS ’07, pages 289–300, SanDiego, CA, June 2007. [2] E. Pinheiro, W. D. Weber, and L. A. Barroso. Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population. USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, Feb.13–16, 2007. [3] Bianca Schroeder and Garth Gibson. Disk failures in the realworld: What does an MTTF of 1,000,000 hours mean to you?In FAST ’07, pages 1–16, San Jose, CA, February 2007. [4] Jimmy Yang and Feng-Bin Sun. A comprehensive review of hard-disk drive reliability. In 1999Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1999.

  32. Thanks

More Related