CIDR11_Bouganim.pptVIP

* * * * * * * * * * * * */25 Flash Device Support for Database Management Luc Bouganim, INRIA, Paris – Rocquencourt, France Philippe Bonnet, ITU Copenhagen, Denmark CIDR 2011 This work is partially supported by the Danish Strategic Research Council. Outline Motivation Flash device behavior The Good, the Bad and the FTL Minimal FTL Bimodal FTL Example: Hash join on Bimodal FTL Conclusion Note: These slides are an extended version of the slides shown at CIDR 2011 DBMS on (or using) flash devices NAND flash performance is impressive Flash devices is part of the memory hierarchy Replace or complement hard disks DBMS design = 3 decades of optimization based on the (initial) hard disk behavior Revisit the DBMS design wrt. flash device behavior? Need to understand the behavior of flash devices Some examples of behavior (Samsung) SR, SW and RR have similar (good) performance RW, not shown, are much more expensive, 10-30ms IO size (KB) Responsetime (μs) Some examples of behavior (Samsung) Average performance can vary of an order of magnitude depending on the device state Random Writes (16KB) Out of the box Random Writes (16 KB) After filling the device Some examples of behavior (Intel X25-E) RW (16 KB) performance varies from 100 μs to 100 ms!! (x 1000) SR, SW and RW have similar performance. RR are more costly! Some examples of behavior (Fusion IO) Capacity vs Performance tradeoff Sensitivity to device state Low level formatted Fully written Responsetime (μs) IO Size = 4KB Flash device behavior (1) Understanding flash behavior [uFLIP, CIDR 2009] Flash devices (e.g., SSDs) do not behave as flash chips Flash devices performance is difficult to measure (device state) Need for an adequate methodology We proposed a wide benchmark to cover current and future devices. We also observed a common behavior and deduced design hints Not true anymore on recent devices! Making assumptions about flash behavior Consider the behavior of flash chips (embedded context) Consider the beh