The Wikipedia page on Turing machines states that a universal Turing machine is slower than the machines it simulates by at most a log factor. I was curious - what is the equivalent in real life, comparing a pure hardware solution (non stored program computer - e.g. ASIC) vs. a stored program computer? Is it also a log factor?
The wikipedia page is a bit prudent. In fact you can write a one tape
universal machine for one tape machines with no overhead.
I am not aware of a precise reference, but the result somehow belongs to the
folklore of the subject. There is only a small "gray" zone regarding the
simulation of programs with subquadratic complexity. This is related to
the fact the universal machine may need to reshape the input before starting
the simulation, and such an operation, on a single tape machine, may already
take quadratic time.
This is somehow related to the general problem of encoding of tuples on
single tape machines that, as far as I can say, has been somehow neglected,
while it is central to complexity issues.
My personal feeling, at present, is that you can overcome the problem of
simulation of machines with subquadratic complexity, obtaining a really
fair universal machine.
I am trying to understand the way the filesystem and the kernel are related, and how they work together, specifically regarding the permissions.
(I know that, in fact, the filesystem is running in kernel space, but in this context I consider them as two separates entities.)
When Bob (UID=1001, GID=1001, groups="humans, minor") tries to read "file.txt" which is, let's say, "rwx r-- --x" with "owner = Alice" and "group owner = minor" -- which one, of the kernel and
the filesystem, permits access?
Does the filesystem have a function taking as parameters the entire list of Bob's groups, Bob's UID and other stuff sent by the kernel (which would allow the filesystem to determine whether Bob can or cannot read the targeted file)?
Furthermore, if this is the way it works -- how does the kernel know the data the filesystem needs for extended/special attributes? In the case of synology extended attributes (ext4/btrfs) for example.
Many thanks for any help / resources to read.
Good day to you!
In my opinion -- when the Kernel receives a request from a User (for example, to open a file), it then analyses the User's access rights. If they are correct -- the Kernel manages the hardware to provide the User with the requested data.
In a context of a computer system (consisting of a Kernel and a File-System; also including hardware to input, to store and to output the data), the File-System itself has no possibility of making decisions (like the Kernel do); it is just an informational structure, written in a manner defined by the rules of operating it (to which the Kernel must have an access, in order to interact correctly; these rules may be stored in the Kernel). So, the Kernel makes decisions on providing access (and if it is to fulfil the request, the Kernel operates the data). And the File-System is a set of both stored data on some hardware, and a software part (as the instructions to the Kernel: how to manipulate the hardware's physical layer and, maybe, how to decide on access-providing on a logical layer); but the decisive role, again, is up to the Kernel (which must accord to all the provided rules).
This variant is just a variant, and it may vary in various operating system realizations. I don't know, in which of them it is implemented (whether this is OS "Linux" or OS "Windows" approach, or maybe not).
And for example, if we describe a remote cloud-storage to which the User connects -- this storage (something in it that acts as a described Kernel; maybe, its Kernel) decides whether to grant the access or not; and the local Kernel acts as a User, to which the remote system is like a Kernel.
Also, I saw a similar (or relative) question here, on "Stack Overflow", too: What does opening a file actually do? -- maybe, there you will find some additional information.
ASIDE: Yes, this is can be considered a subjective question, but I hope to draw conclusions from the statistics of the responses.
There is a broad spectrum of computing devices. They range in physical sizes, computational power and electrical power. I would like to know what embedded developers think is the determining factor(s) that makes a system "embedded." I have my own determination that I will withhold for a week so as to not influence the responses.
I would say "embedded" is any device on which the end user doesn't normally install custom software of their choice. So PCs, laptops and smartphones are out, while XM radios, robot controllers, alarm clocks, pacemakers, hearing aids, the doohickey in your engine that regulates fuel injection etc. are in.
You might just start with wikipedia for a definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_system
"An embedded system is a computer system designed to perform one or a few dedicated functions, often with real-time computing constraints. It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts. "
Coming up with a concrete set of rules for what an embedded system is is to a large degree pointless. It's a term that means different things to different people -maybe even different things to the same people at different times.
There are some things that are pretty much never considered an embedded system, for example a Windows Desktop machine. However, there are companies that put their software on a Windows box - even a bog standard PC (maybe a laptop) - set things up so their application loads automatically and hides the desktop. They sell that as a single purposed machine that many people would call an embedded system (but many people wouldn't). Microsoft even sells a set of tools called Embedded Windows that helps enable these kinds of applications, though it's targeted more to OEMs who will customize the system at least somewhat instead of just putting it on a standard PC. Embedded Windows is used for things like ATM machines and many other devices. I think that most people would consider an ATM an embedded system.
But go into a 7-11 with an ATM that has a keyboard (I honestly don't know what the keyboard is for), press the right shift key 5 times and you'll get a nice Windows "StickyKeys" messagebox (I wonder if there's an exploit there - I sure hope not). So there's a Windows system there, just hidden and with some functionality removed - maybe not as much as the manufacturer would like. If you could convince it to open up notepad.exe somehow does the ATM suddenly stop being an embedded system?
Many, many people consider something like the iPhone or the iTouch an embedded system, but they have nearly as much functionality as a desktop system in many ways.
I think most people's definition of an embedded system might be similar to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of hard-core pornography:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...
I consider an embedded system one where the software is rarely developed directly on the target system. This definition includes sophisticated embedded systems like the iPhone, and excludes primitive desktop systems like the Commodore 64. Not having the development tools on the target means you have to add 'reprogram device' to the edit-compile-run cycle. Debugging is also made more complicated. This encompasses most of the embedded "feel."
Software implemented in a device not intended as a general purpose computing device is an "embedded system".
Typically the system is intended for a single purpose, and the software is static.
Often the system interacts with non-human environmental inputs (sensors) and mechanical actuators, or communication with other non-human systems.
That's off the top of my head. Other views can be read at this embedded.com article
Main factors:
Installed in a fixed place somewhere (you can't carry the device itself around, only the thing it's built into)
The run a long time (often years) with little maintenance
They don't get patched often
They are small, use little power
Small or no display
+1 for a great question.
Like many things there is a spectrum.
At the "totally embedded" end you have devices designed for a single purpose. Alarm clocks, radios, cameras. You can't load new software and make it do something else. THere is no support for changing the hardware,
At the "totally non-embedded" end you have your classic PCs where everything, both HW and SW, can be replaced.
There's still a lot in between those extremes. Laptops and netbooks, for example, have minimally expandable HW, typically only memory and hard disk can be upgraded. But, the SW can be whatever you want.
My education was as a computer engineer, so my definition of embedded is hardware oriented. I draw the line at the MMU (memory management unit). If a chip has an MMU, it usually has off-chip RAM and runs an OS. If a chip does NOT have an MMU, it usually has on-board RAM and runs an RTOS, microkernel or custom executive.
This means I usually dismiss anything running linux, which is shortsighted. I admit my answer is biased towards where I tend to work: microcontroller firmware. So I am glad I asked this question and got a full spectrum of responses.
Quoting a paragraph I've written before:
An embedded system for our purposes is
a computer system that has a specific
and deterministic
functionality\cite{LamieReal}.
Typically, processors for embedded
systems contain elements such as
onboard RAM, special-purpose
processing elements such as a digital
signal processor, analog-to-digital
and digital-to-analog converters.
Since the processors have more
flexibility than a straightforward
CPU, a common term is microcontroller.
Clarified Question:
When the OS sends the command to write a sector to disk is it atomic? i.e. Write of new data succeeds fully or old data is left intact should the power fail immediately following the write command. I don't care about what happens in multiple sector writes - torn pages are acceptable.
Old Question:
Say you have old data X on disk, you write new data Y over it, and a tree falls on the power line during that write. With no fancy UPS or battery backed disk controller, you can end up with a torn page, where the data on disk is part X and part Y. Can you ever end up with a situation where the data on disk is part X, part Y, and part garbage?
I've been trying to understand the design of ACID systems like databases, and to my naive thinking, it seems firebird, which does not use a write-ahead log, is relying that a given write will not destroy old data (X) - only fail to fully write new data (Y). That means that if part of X is being overwritten, only the part of X that is being overwritten can be changed, not the part of X we intend to keep.
To clarify, this means if you have a page sized buffer, say 4096 bytes, filled with half Y, half X that we want to keep - and we tell the OS to write that buffer over X, there is no situation short of serious disk failure where the half X that we want to keep is corrupted during the write.
The traditional (SCSI, ATA) disk protocol specifications don't guarantee that any/every sector write is atomic in the event of sudden power loss (but see below for discussion of the NVMe spec). However, it seems tacitly agreed that non-ancient "real" disks quietly try their best to offer this behaviour (e.g. Linux kernel developer Christoph Hellwig mentions this off-hand in the 2017 presentation "Failure-Atomic file updates for Linux").
When it comes to synthetic disks (e.g. network attached block devices, certain types of RAID etc.) things are less clear and they may or may not offer sector atomicity guarantees while legally behaving per their given spec. Imagine a RAID 1 array (without a journal) comprised of a disk that offers 512 byte sized sectors but where the other disk offered a 4KiB sized sector thus forcing the RAID to expose a sector size of 4KiB. As a thought experiment, you can construct a scenario where each individual disk offers sector atomicity (relative to its own sector size) but where the RAID device does not in the face of power loss. This is because it would depend on whether the 512 byte sector disk was the one being read by the RAID and how many of the 8 512-byte sectors compromising the 4KiB RAID sector it had written before the power failed.
Sometimes specifications offer atomicity guarantees but only on certain write commands. The SCSI disk spec is an example of this and the optional WRITE ATOMIC(16) command can even give a guarantee beyond a sector but being optional it's rarely implemented (and thus rarely used). The more commonly implemented COMPARE AND WRITE is also atomic (potentially across multiple sectors too) but again it's optional for a SCSI device and comes with different semantics to a plain write...
Curiously, the NVMe spec was written in such a way to guarantee sector atomicity thanks to Linux kernel developer Matthew Wilcox. Devices that are compliant with that spec have to offer a guarantee of sector write atomicity and may choose to offer contiguous multi-sector atomicity up to a specified limit (see the AWUPF field). However, it's unclear how you can discover and use any multi-sector guarantee if you aren't currently in a position to send raw NVMe commands...
Andy Rudoff is an engineer who talks about investigations he has done on the topic of write atomicity. His presentation "Protecting SW From Itself: Powerfail Atomicity for Block Writes" (slides) has a section of video where he talks about how power failure impacts in-flight writes on traditional storage. He describes how he contacted hard drive manufacturers about the statement "a disk's rotational energy is used to ensure that writes are completed in the face of power loss" but the replies were non-committal as to whether that manufacturer actually performed such an action. Further, no manufacturer would say that torn writes never happen and while he was at Sun, ZFS added checksums to blocks which led to them uncovering cases of torn writes during testing. It's not all bleak though - Andy talks about how sector tearing is rare and if a write is interrupted then you usually get only the old sector, or only the new sector, or an error (so at least corruption is not silent). Andy also has an older slide deck Write Atomicity and NVM Drive Design which collects popular claims and cautions that a lot of software (including various popular filesystems on multiple OSes) are actually unknowingly dependent on sector writes being atomic...
(The following takes a Linux centric view but many of the concepts apply to general-purpose OSes that are not being deployed in a tightly controlled hardware environments)
Going back to 2013, BtrFS lead developer Chris Mason talked about how (the now defunct) Fusion-io had created a storage product that implemented atomic operation (Chris was working for Fusion-io at the time). Fusion-io also created a proprietary filesystem "DirectFS" (written by Chris) to expose this feature. The MariaDB developers implemented a mode that could take advantage of this behaviour by no longer doing double buffering resulting in "43% more transactions per second and half the wear on the storage device". Chris proposed a patch so generic filesystems (such as BtrFS) could advertise that they provided atomicity guarantees via a new flag O_ATOMIC but block layer changes would also be needed. Said block layer changes were also proposed by Chris in a later patch series that added a function blk_queue_set_atomic_write(). However, neither of the patch series ever entered the mainline Linux kernel and there is no O_ATOMIC flag in the (current 2020) mainline 5.7 Linux kernel.
Before we go further, it's worth noting that even if a lower level doesn't offer an atomicity guarantee, a higher level can still provide atomicity (albeit with performance overhead) to its users so long as it knows when a write has reached stable storage. If fsync() can tell you when writes are on stable storage (technically not guaranteed by POSIX but the case on modern Linux) then because POSIX rename is atomic you can use the create new file/fsync/rename dance to do atomic file updates thus allowing applications to do double buffering/Write Ahead Logging themselves. Another example lower down in the stack are Copy On Write filesystems like BtrFS and ZFS. These filesystems give userspace programs a guarantee of "all the old data" or "all the new data" after a crash at sizes greater than a sector because of their semantics even though a disk many not offer atomic writes. You can push this idea all the way down into the disk itself where NAND based SSDs don't overwrite the area currently used by an existing LBA and instead write the data to a new region and keep a mapping of where the LBA's data is now.
Resuming our abridged timeline, in 2015 HP researchers wrote a paper Failure-Atomic Updates of Application Data
in a Linux File System (PDF) (media) about introducing a new feature into the Linux port of AdvFS (AdvFS was originally part of DEC's Tru64):
If a file is opened with a new O_ATOMIC flag, the state of its application data will always reflect the most recent successful msync, fsync, or fdatasync. AdvFS furthermore includes a new syncv operation that combines updates to multiple files into a failure-atomic bundle [...]
In 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote experimental patches to XFS to provide O_ATOMIC. In the "Failure-Atomic file updates for Linux" talk (slides) he explains how he drew inspiration from the 2015 paper (but without the multi-file support) and the patchset extends the XFS reflink work that already existed. However, despite an initial mailing list post, at the time of writing (mid 2020) this patchset is not in the mainline kernel.
During the database track of the 2019 Linux Plumbers Conference, MySQL developer Dimitri Kravtchuk asked if there were plans to support O_ATOMIC (link goes to start of filmed discussion). Those assembled mention the XFS work above, that Intel claim they can do atomicity on Optane but Linux doesn't provide an interface to expose it, that Google claims to provide 16KiB atomicity on GCE storage1. Another key point is that many database developers need something larger than 4KiB atomicity to avoid having to do double writes - PostgreSQL needs 8KiB, MySQL needs 16KiB and apparently the Oracle database needs 64KiB. Further, Dr Richard Hipp (author of the SQLite database) asked if there's a standard interface to request atomicity because today SQLite makes use of the F2FS filesystem's ability to do atomic updates via custom ioctl()s but the ioctl was tied to one filesystem. Chris replied that for the time being there's nothing standard and nothing provides the O_ATOMIC interface.
At the 2021 Linux Plumbers Conference Darrick Wong re-raised the topic of atomic writes (link goes to start of filmed discussion). He pointed out there are two different things that people mean when they say they want atomic writes:
Hardware provides some atomicity API and this capability is somehow exposed through the software stack
Make the filesystem do all the work to expose some sort of atomic write API irrespective of hardware
Darrick mentioned that Christoph had ideas for 1. in the past but Christoph has not come back to the topic and further there are unanswered questions (how you make userspace aware of limits, if the feature was exposed it would be restricted to direct I/O which may problematic for many programs). Instead Darrick suggested tackling 2. was to propose his FIEXCHANGE_RANGE ioctl which swaps the contents of two files (the swap is restartable if it fails part way through). This approach doesn't have the limits (e.g. smallish contiguous size, maximum number of scatter gather vectors, direct I/O only) that a hardware based solution would have and could theoretically be implementable in the VFS thus being filesystem agnostic...
TLDR; if you are in tight control of your whole stack from application all the way down the the physical disks (so you can control and qualify the whole lot) you can arrange to have what you need to make use of disk atomicity. If you're not in that situation or you're talking about the general case, you should not depend on sector writes being atomic.
When the OS sends the command to write a sector to disk is it atomic?
At the time of writing (mid-2020):
When using a mainline 4.14+ Linux kernel
If you are dealing with a real disk
a sector write sent by the kernel is likely atomic (assuming a sector is no bigger than 4KiB). In controlled cases (battery backed controller, NVMe disk which claims to support atomic writes, SCSI disk where the vendor has given you assurances etc.) a userspace program may be able to use O_DIRECT so long as O_DIRECT wasn't reverting to being buffered, the I/O didn't get split apart/merged at the block layer / you are sending device specific commands and are bypassing the block layer. However, in the general case neither the kernel nor a userspace program can safely assume sector write atomicity.
Can you ever end up with a situation where the data on disk is part X, part Y, and part garbage?
From a specification perspective if you are talking about a SCSI disk doing a regular SCSI WRITE(16) and a power failure happening in the middle of that write then the answer is yes: a sector could contain part X, part Y AND part garbage. A crash during an inflight write means the data read from the area that was being written to is indeterminate and the disk is free to choose what it returns as data from that region. This means all old data, all new data, some old and new, all zeros, all ones, random data etc. are all "legal" values to return for said sector. From an old draft of the SBC-3 spec:
4.9 Write failures
If one or more commands performing write operations are in the task set and are being processed when power is lost (e.g., resulting in a vendor-specific command timeout by the application client) or a medium error or hardware error occurs (e.g., because a removable medium was incorrectly unmounted), the data in the logical blocks being written by those commands is indeterminate. When accessed by a command performing a read or verify operation (e.g., after power on or after the removable medium is mounted), the device server may return old data, new data, or vendor-specific data in those logical blocks.
Before reading logical blocks which encountered such a failure, an application client should reissue any commands performing write operations that were outstanding.
1 In 2018 Google announced it had tweaked its cloud SQL stack and that this allowed them to use 16k atomic writes MySQL's with innodb_doublewrite=0 via O_DIRECT... The underlying customisations Google performed were described as being in the virtualized storage, kernel, virtio and the ext4 filesystem layers. Further, a no longer available beta document titled Best practices for 16 KB persistent disk and MySQL (archived copy) described what end users had to do to safely make use of the feature. Changes included: using an appropriate Google provided VM, using specialized storage, changing block device parameters and carefully creating an ext4 filesystem with a specific layout. However, at some point in 2020 this document vanished from GCE's online guides suggesting such end user tuning is not supported.
I think torn pages are not the problem. As far as I know, all drives have enough power stored to finish writing the current sector when the power fails.
The problem is that everybody lies.
At least when it comes to the database knowing when a transaction has been committed to disk, everybody lies. The database issues an fsync, and the operating system only returns when all outstanding writes have been committed to disk, right? Maybe not. It's common, especially with RAID cards and/or SATA drives, for your program to be told everything has committed (that is, fsync returns) and yet there is data not yet on the drive.
You can try using Brad's diskchecker to find out if the platform you are going to use for your database can survive pulling the plug without losing data. The bottom line: If diskchecker fails, the platform is not safe for running a database. Databases with ACID rely upon knowing when a transaction has been committed to backing store and when it has not. This is true whether or not the databases uses write-ahead loggin (and if the database returns to the user without having done an fsync, then transactions can be lost in the event of a failure, so it should not claim that it provides ACID semantics).
There's a long thread on the Postgresql mailing list discussing durability. It starts out talking about SSDs, but then it gets into SATA drives, SCSI drives, and file systems. You may be surprised to learn how exposed your data can be to loss. It's a good thread for anyone with a database that needs durability, not just those running Postgresql.
Nobody seems to agree on this question. So I spent a lot of time trying different Google queries until I finally found an answer.
from Dr. Stephen Tweedie, RedHat employee and linux kernel filesystem and virtual memory developer in a talk on ext3 (which he developed) transcript here. If anyone knows, it'd be him.
"It's not sufficient just to write the thing to the journal, because there's got to be some mark in the journal which says: well, (has this journal record actually) does this journal record actually represent a complete consistency to the disk? And the way you do that is by having some atomic operation which marks that transaction as being complete on disk" [23m, 14s]
"Now, disks these days actually make these guarantees. If you start a write operation to a disk, then even if the power fails in the middle of that sector write, the disk has enough power available, and it can actually steal power from the rotational energy of the spindle; it has enough power to complete the write of the sector that's being written right now. In all cases, the disks make that guarantee." [23m, 41s]
No, they are not. Worse yet, disks may lie and say the data is written when it is in fact in the disk cache, under default settings. For performance reasons, this may be desirable (actual durability is up to an order of magnitude slower) but it means if you lose power and the disk cache is not physically written, your data is gone.
Real durability is both hard and slow unfortunately, since you need to make at least one full rotation per write, or 2+ with journalling/undo. This limits you to a couple hundred DB transactions per second, and requires disabling write caching at a fairly low level.
For practical purposes though, the difference is not that big of a deal in most cases.
See:
How (not) to achieve durability.
FSync() may not flush to disk
People don't seem to agree on what happens during a sector write if the power fails. Maybe because it depends on the hardware being used, and even the filesystem.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_file_system):
Some disk drives guarantee write
atomicity during a power failure.
Others, however, may stop writing
midway through a sector after power is
lost, leaving it mismatched against
its error-correcting code. The sector
is thus corrupt and its contents lost.
A physical journal guards against such
corruption because it holds a complete
copy of the sector, which it can
replay over the corruption upon next
mount.
Seems to suggest that some hard drives will not finish writing the sector, but that a journaling filesystem can protect you from data loss the same way the xlog protects a database.
From the linux kernel mailing list in a discussion on ext3 journaling filesystem:
In any case bad sector checksum is
hardware bug. Sector write is supposed
to be atomic, it either happens or
not.
I'd tend to believe that over the wiki comment. Actually, the very existence of a database (firebird) with no xlog implies that sector write is atomic, that it cannot clobber data you did not mean to change.
There's quite a bit of discussion Here about atomicity of sector writes, and again no agreement. But the people who are disagreeing seem to be talking about multiple-sector writes (which are not atomic on many modern hard-drives.) Those who are saying sector writes are atomic do seem to know more about what they're talking about.
The answer to your first question depends on the hardware involved. At least with some older hardware, the answer was yes -- a power failure could result it garbage being written to the disk. Most current disks, however, have a bit of a "UPS" built into the disk itself -- a capacitor that's large enough to power the disk long enough to write the data in the on-disk cache out to the disk platter. They also have circuitry to detect whether the power supply is still good, so when the power gets flaky, they write the data in the cache to the platter, and ignore garbage they might receive.
As far as a "torn page" goes, a typical disk only accepts commands to write an entire sector at a time, so what you'll get will normally be an integral number of sectors written correctly, and others remaining unchanged. If, however, you're using a logical page size that's larger than a single sector, you can certainly end up with a page that's partially written.
That, however, mostly applies to a direct connection to a normal moving-platter type hard drive. With almost anything else, the rules can and often will be different. Just for an obvious example, if you're writing over the network, you're mostly at the mercy of the network protocol in use. If you transmit data over TCP, data that doesn't match up with the CRC will be rejected, but the same data transmitted over UDP, with the same corruption, might be accepted.
I suspect this assumption is wrong.
Modern HDDs encode the data in sectors - and additionally protect it with ECC. Therefore you can end-up with garbaging all the sector content - it will just not make sense with the encoding used.
As for increasingly poplular SSDs, the situation is even more gruesome - the block is cleared prior to being overwritten, so, depending on the firmware being used and the amount of free space, entirely unrelated sectors can be damaged.
By the way, an OS crash will not lead to data being damaged within single sector.
I would expect one torn page to consist of part X, part Y, and part unreadable sector. If a head is in the middle of writing a sector when the power fails, the drive should park the heads immediately, so that the rest of the drive (aside from that one sector) will remain undamaged.
In some cases I would expect several torn pages consisting of part X and part Y, but only one torn page would include an unreadable sector. The reason for several torn pages is that the drive can buffer lots of writes internally, and the order of writing might interleave various sectors from various pages.
I've read conflicting stories about whether a new write to the unreadable sector will make it readable again. Even if the answer is yes, that will be new data Z, neither X nor Y.
when updating the
disk, the only guarantee drive manufactures make is that a single 512-
byte write is atomic (i.e., it will either complete in its entirety or it won’t
complete at all); thus, if an untimely power loss occurs, only a portion of
a larger write may complete (sometimes called a torn write).