DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2008-06
Re: HAMMER Update 13-June-2008 - HEADS UP: MEDIA CHANGED AGAIN
On 2008-06-16 23:37, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :<email@example.com> wrote:
> :> I am not too familiar with Reiser so I can't really come to that
> :> conclusion, but it doesn't seem likely that the reasons are similar.
> :They used B+ in earlier versions. In Reiser4 they decided to use
> I can never keep all the variations straight, I need a Wiki reference
> every time to get the name right :-).
> These are all minor variations of B+Trees. The B* variation keeps
> nodes 2/3rds full instead of half full. It is an optimization which
> is intended to maintain higher fill ratios to make better use of system
> A Dancing tree ... hehehehe. Looks like Hans invented that one. I'm
> not sure it even counts as a variation of a B+Tree. It doesn't apply
> to HAMMER at all because HAMMER makes no modifications to the B-Tree
> whatsoever on the front-end. When you create, delete, rename, write,
> etc... when you do those operations HAMMER caches them in a
> virtualization layer in memory and doesn't make any modifications to
> its on-media data structures (or their in-memory representations) at
> all until the meta-data is synced to disk.
> HAMMER doesn't have to make real-time on-media modifications for any
> meta-data change for ANY operation. Not a single one. Not rename, not
> hard or soft links, not truncations, nothing.
> HAMMER uses a modified B+Tree for its on-disk representation, which is
> a B-Tree with only keys at internal nodes and only records at the leafs.
> This was done to reduce structural bloat, allow for a leaf->leaf
> linking optimization in the future, and for other reasons. The Wiki
> definition isn't quite right. The leaf->leaf links are optional (and
> HAMMER doesn't implement them, though I've left room to do so). It's
> still a B+Tree if you don't have them.
> HAMMER's custom modification is to formalize both a left AND a right
> bounding element. So a HAMMER B+Tree looks like this:
> B B B B B B <---- internal node (e.g. 6 elements w/ 5 leaf ptrs)
> L L L L L <---- leaf nodes
> Whereas a normal B+Tree looks like this (note the missing right bound):
> B B B B B <---- internal node
> L L L L L <---- leaf nodes
> Note that HAMMER uses a radix of 64, so e.g. 64 internal elements but one
> is a right-bound so only 63 pointers to the next level. The leafs then
> have 64 elements. So HAMMER's B+Tree recursion is 63x63x63....x64.
> HAMMER's internal nodes have a left and right bounding element. A
> standard B+Tree only has a left bounding element. By adding a right
> bounding element HAMMER can cache pointers into its B+Tree and 'pick up'
> searches, insertions, and deletions relative to the cached pointers instead
> of having to start at the root of the tree. More importantly, it can
> pickup searches, insertions, and deletions at internal nodes, not just
> leaf nodes. So I can cache a proximity pointer and if I do a good job
> I never have to traverse the B+Tree above that point.
> Without the right bound a search cannot be picked up from mid-tree
> without potentially going down the wrong branch and then having to
But the case when you have to backtrack should be easily detected (when
the sought element is greater than the right-most bound), right? And
with a radix of 64 that would on average only happen on every 64'th
lookup. I'm not arguing the effectiveness of your implementation, just
checking my understanding of B+trees.