Advertisement

Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 1140–1151 | Cite as

CRL: Efficient Concurrent Regeneration Codes with Local Reconstruction in Geo-Distributed Storage Systems

  • Quan-Qing XuEmail author
  • Wei-Ya Xi
  • Khai Leong Yong
  • Chao Jin
Regular Paper

Abstract

As a typical erasure coding choice, Reed-Solomon (RS) codes have such high repair cost that there is a penalty for high reliability and storage efficiency, thereby they are not suitable in geo-distributed storage systems. We present a novel family of concurrent regeneration codes with local reconstruction (CRL) in this paper. The CRL codes enjoy three benefits. Firstly, they are able to minimize the network bandwidth for node repair. Secondly, they can reduce the number of accessed nodes by calculating parities from a subset of data chunks and using an implied parity chunk. Thirdly, they are faster than existing erasure codes for reconstruction in geo-distributed storage systems. In addition, we demonstrate how the CRL codes overcome the limitations of the Reed-Solomon codes. We also illustrate analytically that they are excellent in the trade-off between chunk locality and minimum distance. Furthermore, we present theoretical analysis including latency analysis and reliability analysis for the CRL codes. By using quantity comparisons, we prove that CRL(6, 2, 2) is only 0.657x of Azure LRC(6, 2, 2), where there are six data chunks, two global parities, and two local parities, and CRL(10, 4, 2) is only 0.656x of HDFS-Xorbas(10, 4, 2), where there are 10 data chunks, four local parities, and two global parities respectively, in terms of data reconstruction times. Our experimental results show the performance of CRL by conducting performance evaluations in both two kinds of environments: 1) it is at least 57.25% and 66.85% more than its competitors in terms of encoding and decoding throughputs in memory, and 2) it has at least 1.46x and 1.21x higher encoding and decoding throughputs than its competitors in JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Disks). We also illustrate that CRL is 28.79% and 30.19% more than LRC on encoding and decoding throughputs in a geo-distributed environment.

Keywords

concurrent regeneration code local reconstruction geo-distributed storage system 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement(s)

We thank the referees for their insightful reviews. Cloud computing resources were provided by a Microsoft Azure for Research award.

Supplementary material

11390_2018_1877_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (280 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 279 kb)

References

  1. [1]
    Sathiamoorthy M, Asteris M, Papailiopoulos D S, Dimakis A G, Vadali R, Chen S, Borthakur D. XORing elephants: Novel erasure codes for big data. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2013, 6(5): 325-336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Rashmi K V, Shah N B, Gu D, Kuang H, Borthakur D, Ramchandran K. A “hitchhiker’s” guide to fast and efficient data reconstruction in erasure-coded data centers. In Proc. the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM, Aug. 2014, pp.331-342.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Huang C, Simitci H, Xu Y, Ogus A, Calder B, Gopalan P, Li J, Yekhanin S. Erasure coding in windows Azure storage. In Proc. the 2012 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Jun. 2012, pp.15-26.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Qin A, Hu D M, Liu J, Yang W J, Tan D. Fatman: Building reliable archival storage based on low-cost volunteer resources. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2015, 30(2): 273-282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Xu Q, Arumugam R V, Yong K L, Mahadevan S. Efficient and scalable metadata management in EB-scale file systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2014, 25(11): 2840-2850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Xu Q, Xi W, Yong K L, Jin C. Concurrent regeneration code with local reconstruction in distributed storage systems. In Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, Park J J, Chao H C, Arabnia H, Yen N Y (eds.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2016, pp.415-422.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dimakis A G, Godfrey B, Wu Y, Wainwright M J, Ramchandran K. Network coding for distributed storage systems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2010, 56(9): 4539-4551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Gopalan P, Huang C, Simitci H, Yekhanin S. On the locality of codeword symbols. IEEE Trans. Information Theory, 2012, 58(11): 6925-6934.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Wu Y, Dimakis A G. Reducing repair traffic for erasure coding-based storage via interference alignment. In Proc. the 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Jun. 2009, pp.2276-2280.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Cook J D, Primmer R, de Kwant A. Compare cost and performance of replication and erasure coding. Hitachi Review, 2014, 63: 304-310.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Aslam C A, Guan Y L, Cai K. Edge-based dynamic scheduling for belief-propagation decoding of LDPC and RS codes. IEEE Trans. Communications, 2017, 65(2): 525-535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ford D, Labelle F, Popovici F I, Stokely M, Truong V, Barroso L, Grimes C, Quinlan S. Availability in globally distributed storage systems. In Proc. the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 2010, pp.61-74.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Weatherspoon H, Kubiatowicz J. Erasure coding vs. replication: A quantitative comparison. In Proc. the 1st International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, Mar. 2002, pp.328-338.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Tian J, Yang Z, Dai Y. A data placement scheme with time-related model for P2P storages. In Proc. the 7th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Sept. 2007, pp.151-158.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Huang Z, Jiang H, Zhou K, Wang C, Zhao Y. XI-code: A family of practical lowest density MDS array codes of distance 4. IEEE Trans. Communications, 2016, 64(7): 2707-2718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dimakis A G, Ramchandran K, Wu Y, Suh C. A survey on network codes for distributed storage. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2011, 99(3): 476-489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kermarrec A, Scouarnec N L, Straub G. Repairing multiple failures with coordinated and adaptive regenerating codes. In Proc. the 2011 International Symposium on Networking Coding, Jul. 2011.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Shum K W, Hu Y. Exact minimum-repair-bandwidth cooperative regenerating codes for distributed storage systems. In Proc. the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings, Jul. 2011, pp.1442-1446.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Li M, Lee P P C. STAIR codes: A general family of erasure codes for tolerating device and sector failures. ACM Transactions on Storage, 2014, 10(4): Article No. 14.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Liu Q, Feng D, Hu Y, Shi Z, Fu M. High performance general functional regenerating codes with near-optimal repair bandwidth. ACM Transactions on Storage, 2017, 13(2): Article No. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Xu Q, Ng H W, Xi W, Jin C. Effective local reconstruction codes based on regeneration for large-scale storage systems. In Proc. the 2018 Future of Information and Communication Conference, Apr. 2018, pp.501-507.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quan-Qing Xu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wei-Ya Xi
    • 2
  • Khai Leong Yong
    • 2
  • Chao Jin
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of High Performance ComputingAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Data Storage InstituteAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Institute for Infocomm ResearchAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations