Fluffy Stuff

A tmp place to rest

"Sun's Network File System (NFS)"


Design a distributed file system with transparent access to files from clients

System designs

nfs architecture

  • the server stores the data on its disks, and clients request data through well-formed protocol messages

  • Architecture advantages:

    • easy sharing of data across clients
    • centralized administration (backup done on multiple servers instead of many clients)
    • security (put server behind firewall)
  • Transparency:

    • Location transparency: file name does not include name of the server where the file is stored
    • Implemented using NFS Mount Protocol:
      • Mount remote directories as local directories
      • Maintain a Mount table with (directory, server) mapping

distributed file system architecture

  • Clients talk to server using RPC:

    • Use RPC to forward every file system request; remote server executes each request as a local request; server responds back with result (Example: Figure 49.5 in Remzi's chapter)
    • Advantage: server provides a consistent view of the file system to clients
    • Disadvantage: performance (use cache)
  • Crash Recovery:

    • goal: simple and fast server crash recovery
    • Use a stateless Protocol (NFSv2): the server doesn't keep track of anything about what is happening at each client
    • Stateful: server maintain a filedescriptor(an integer) to actual file relationship (unknown after recovery)
    • Stateless: file handle (a unique identifier for each directory and file).
      • Every client RPC call needs to pass a file handle
      • Server returns file handle whenever needs (e.g., mkdir)
  • Server failure & Message loss:

    • Client retries the request (READ, WRITE are idempotent in NFS)
  • Cache:

    • Client side:
      • cache file data and metadata by block that is read from server in local memory
      • Cache serves as a temporary buffer for writes (allow asyncronous write)
      • Advantage: reduce network usage, improve performance
      • Disadvantage: write lost in memory after crash (safety vs. performance tradeoff)
    • Server side:
      • server can buffer the write in memory and write to disk asychronously
      • Problem: write in memory can lost
      • Sol:
        • battery-backed memory
        • commit each WRITE to stable storage before ack WRITE success to clients
  • Cache consistency problem:

    • Update visibility: when do updates from one client become visible at other clients?
      • sol: flush-on-close (write-back cache):
        • when a file is written to and subsequently closed by a client application, the client flushes all updates (i.e., dirty pages in the cache) to the server.
    • Stale cache: once the server has a new version, how long before clients see the new version instead of an older cached copy?
      • sol: issue GETATTR to get file stats (last modified date), if the time-of-modification is more recent than the time that the file was fetched into the client cache, the client invalidates the cache and subsequent reads will go to the server.
      • Use attribute cache to reduce GETATTR requests (update attribute cache periodically)
      • Still has problem: can still read stale value (polling interval, cache update/invalidation delayed by network)


You may think the solution to cache consistency problems look a lot like write-back + invalidation. The geenral idea is the same. However, the solution here takes client's perspective. However, the definitions in my previous post takes server's perspective. More formally, we call client's perspective "client-initiated consistency protocol" and server's perspective "server-initiated consistency protocol".


  • NFS issues:
    • multiple clients update the same file may get inconsistent view of the file (depends on cache update/invalidation, attribute cache polling frequency)
    • Clients crash may lose data in buffer (cache)
  • NFS Key features:
    • Location-transparent naming
    • Client-side and server-side caching for performance
    • Stateless architecture
    • Client-initiated consistency protocol
  • Good in NFS:
    • Simple
    • Highly portable (open protocol)
  • Bad in NFS:
    • Lack of strong consistency


comments powered by Disqus