Data deduplication is a technique used to increase storage capacity of a storage device. By using data deduplication, a redundant copy of a unique data chunk is identified and removed from the storage device. Thus, a single copy of the unique data chunk is stored in the storage device.
Some examples of the present application are described with respect to the following figures:
As described above, data deduplication is a technique used to increase storage capacity of a storage device. To determine whether a data chunk is a redundant copy of an existing stored data chunk, a fingerprint of the data chunk is generated. The fingerprint may be a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) of the data chunk or a hash key of the data chunk. When the fingerprint matches another fingerprint, the match may indicate that the data chunk is a redundant copy. Thus, the storage device removes the data chunk.
However, the match may indicate a fingerprint collision rather than an indication of a redundant copy. A fingerprint collision occurs when two data chunks with different content generate identical fingerprints. Thus, the fingerprint of the data chunk may be a colliding fingerprint. A likelihood of a fingerprint collision is dependent on the fingerprint size. The larger the fingerprint size, the lower the likelihood. Thus, an accuracy of a data deduplication process is reduced when depending solely on fingerprint matching.
Examples described herein provide a storage device to store a data chunk with a colliding fingerprint. For example, a storage device may receive a first data chunk from a source device. The storage device may generate a first fingerprint of the first data chunk. The storage device may compare the first fingerprint to a second fingerprint of a second data chunk stored in the storage device. In response to a determination that the first fingerprint matches the second fingerprint, the storage device may select a storage pool from a plurality of storage pools associated with the storage device to store the first data chunk based on the first data chunk and based on the second data chunk. The plurality of storage pools includes a first storage pool associated with first particular data chunks with non-colliding fingerprints and a second storage pool associated with second particular data chunks with colliding fingerprints. In this manner, examples described herein may increase an accuracy of a data deduplication process.
Referring now to the figures,
Storage device 100 may include a controller 102, a first storage pool 104, a second storage pool 106, and a fingerprint database 108. Controller 102 may be, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a semiconductor-based microprocessor, and/or other hardware devices suitable for retrieval and execution of instructions stored in a computer-readable storage medium (not shown) of storage device 100. Controller 102 may fetch, decode, and execute instructions to control a process of storing a data chunk with a colliding fingerprint to a storage pool, such as second storage pool 106. As an alternative or in addition to retrieving and executing instructions, controller 102 may include at least one electronic circuit that includes electronic components for performing the functionality of the instructions.
First storage pool 104 may include, for example, one or more storage devices, one or more logical storage volumes, etc. First storage pool 104 may store data chunks with non-colliding fingerprints. As used herein, a non-colliding fingerprint may be a fingerprint that has no matching fingerprints stored in fingerprint database 108. Second storage pool 106 may be similar to first storage pool 104. Second storage pool 106 may store data chunk with colliding fingerprints. Fingerprint database 108 may be a database that stores fingerprints of data chunks stored in storage device 100 or associated with storage device 100.
During operation, a source device 110 may transfer a data chunk 112 to storage device 100 for storage. Source device 110 may be a computing device, such as a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a smart phone, etc. In response to receiving data chunk 112, controller 102 may perform a data deduplication operation to determine how data chunk 112 is to be stored. Controller 102 may generate a fingerprint 114 of data chunk 112. Controller 102 may compare fingerprint 114 to at least one fingerprint stored in fingerprint database 108. When fingerprint 114 does not match any fingerprint in fingerprint database 108, controller 102 may determine that fingerprint 114 is a non-colliding fingerprint.
Thus, controller 102 may determine that data chunk 112 is a unique data chunk and is not a redundant copy of an existing data chunk already stored in storage device 100. Controller 102 may store data chunk 112 in first storage pool 104. Controller 102 may also store fingerprint 114 to fingerprint database 108 for comparison with subsequently generated fingerprints.
When fingerprint 114 matches a particular fingerprint in fingerprint database 108, controller 102 may compare data chunk 112 to a particular data chunk having the particular fingerprint from first storage pool 104 and/or second storage pool 106, For example, controller 102 may compare data chunk to the particular data chunk via a byte by byte comparison. When data chunk 112 matches the particular data chunk, controller 102 may determine that data chunk 112 is a redundant copy of the particular data chunk. Thus, controller 102 may store a reference or a pointer to the particular data chunk in the storage pool where the particular data chunk is stored. Controller 102 may also discard fingerprint 114.
When data chunk 112 mismatches the particular data chunk, controller 102 may determine that data chunk 112 is a unique data chunk that is not currently stored in storage device 100. Controller 102 may determine that fingerprint 114 is a colliding fingerprint. Controller 102 may store data chunk 112 in second storage pool 106. In some examples, controller 102 may discard fingerprint 114 after comparing data chunk 112 to the particular data chunk and associate the particular fingerprint to data chunk 112. Thus, by utilizing separate storage pools, one for data chunks with non-colliding fingerprints and one for data chunks with colliding fingerprints, a unique data chunk with a colliding fingerprint may be efficiently handled by storage device 100.
In some examples, a data chunk may be stored to a location in first storage pool 104 based on a three level page table translation of a fingerprint of the data chunk. A data chunk may be stored to a location in second storage pool 106 based on a three level page table translation of an offset of the data chunk. Thus, the same data chunk storage and retrieval mechanism may be used for storage pools 104 and 106.
Computer-readable storage medium 204 may be any electronic, magnetic, optical, or other physical storage device that contains or stores executable instructions. Thus, computer-readable storage medium 204 may be, for example, Random Access Memory (RAM), an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), an optical disc, etc. In some examples, computer-readable storage medium 204 may be a non-transitory storage medium, where the term “non-transitory” does not encompass transitory propagating signals. As described in detail below, computer-readable storage medium 204 may be encoded with a series of processor executable instructions 206-214 to store a data chunk with a colliding fingerprint in storage device 200.
Data chunk reception instructions 206 may receive a data chunk from a source device for storage, such as data chunk 112 of
When the fingerprint matches another fingerprint in storage device 200, data chunk comparison instructions 212 may compare the data chunk to another data chunk that is used to generate the matching fingerprint. When the data chunk matches the other data chunk, data chunk storing instructions 214 may store a reference or a pointer to the other data chunk in a first storage pool associated with data chunks with non-colliding fingerprints, such as first storage pool 104. When the data chunk mismatches the other data chunk, data chunk storing instructions 214 may store the data chunk in a second storage pool separate from the first storage pool, such as second storage pool 106. The second storage pool may be associated with data chunks with colliding fingerprints. When the fingerprint mismatches the fingerprints in storage device 200, data chunk storing instructions 214 may store the data chunk in the second storage pool.
Method 300 also includes generating a first fingerprint of the first data chunk, at 304. For example, referring to
Method 300 further includes, when the first fingerprint matches the second fingerprint, selecting a storage pool from a plurality of storage pools associated with the storage device to store the first data chunk based on a comparison between the first data chunk and the second data chunk, where the plurality of storage pools includes a first storage pool associated with first particular data chunks with non-colliding fingerprints and a second storage pool associated with second particular data particular data chunks with colliding fingerprints, at 308. For example, referring to
Method 300 further includes, when the first fingerprint mismatches the second fingerprint, storing the first data chunk in the first storage pool, at 310. For example, referring to
Method 400 also includes generating a fingerprint, at 404. For example, referring to
When the fingerprint does not match any of the fingerprints, method 400 further includes storing the data chunk to a non-colliding fingerprint storage pool. For example, referring to
When the data chunk matches the other data chunk, the data chunk is stored in the non-colliding fingerprint storage pool, at 408. When the data chunk mismatches the other data chunk, method 400 further includes storing the data chunk to a colliding fingerprint storage pool, at 412. For example, referring to
According to the foregoing, examples disclosed herein enable a storage device to store a data chunk with a colliding fingerprint. The storage device may compare a fingerprint of a data chunk to one or more fingerprints stored in the storage device. When there is a matching fingerprint, the storage device may compare the data chunk to another data chunk used to generate the matching fingerprint. When the data chunk matches the other data chunk, the data chunk may be a redundant copy of the other data chunk. Thus, the storage device may store a reference or a pointer to the other data chunk. When the data chunk mismatches the other data chunk, the data chunk may be a unique data chunk. Thus, the storage device may store the data chunk to a storage pool separate from a storage pool that is used to store the other data chunk. Thus, the data chunk with a colliding fingerprint is not mistakenly identified as a redundant copy of another data chunk and an accuracy of a data deduplication process in the storage device may be increased.
The use of “comprising”, “including” or “having” are synonymous and variations thereof herein are meant to be inclusive or open-ended and do not exclude additional unrecited elements or method steps.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2014/057507 | 9/25/2014 | WO | 00 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2016/048331 | 3/31/2016 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5974481 | Broder | Oct 1999 | A |
6081805 | Guha | Jun 2000 | A |
6226710 | Melchior | May 2001 | B1 |
7366836 | Todd et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7412580 | Garthwaite | Aug 2008 | B1 |
7640406 | Hagerstrom et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7925850 | Waldspurger et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7979670 | Saliba et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8055599 | Werth | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8086799 | Mondal et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8115660 | Kaufman et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8199911 | Tsaur et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8205065 | Matze | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8219821 | Zimmels et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8224874 | Guo et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8266430 | Lumb | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8327061 | Boldy et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8356020 | Mittal | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8392376 | Guo | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8392384 | Wu et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8402004 | Provenzano et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8731190 | Lumb | May 2014 | B2 |
8799367 | Condict et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8898114 | Feathergill et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8898119 | Sharma et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8943023 | Sorenson, III | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9086819 | Panchbudhe et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9110936 | Li et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9152500 | Gardner | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9317218 | Botelho | Apr 2016 | B1 |
20030033498 | Borman et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20060155915 | Pereira | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070089041 | Wu | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070150755 | Makii et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20080228697 | Adya et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090228511 | Atkin et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090254507 | Hosoya et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090259701 | Wideman et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100070698 | Ungureanu et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100174881 | Anglin et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110055471 | Thatcher et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110131390 | Srinivasan et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110307447 | Sabaa et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120089894 | Winter | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120166401 | Li et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120215980 | Auchmoody et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120226691 | Edwards et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120246436 | Wang et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20130013865 | Venkatesh et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130086006 | Colgrove et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130086009 | Li et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130117516 | Sobolewski et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130198462 | Serlet et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130268497 | Baldwin et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130318288 | Khan et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130346720 | Colgrove et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140032925 | Panchbudhe et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140074804 | Colgrove et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140189348 | El-Shimi et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140281134 | Eitan et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20160065540 | Androulaki et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160291891 | Cheriton et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160352511 | Bashyam et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102629258 | Aug 2012 | CN |
WO-0057275 | Sep 2000 | WO |
WO-2011084854 | Jul 2011 | WO |
WO-2012173859 | Dec 2012 | WO |
WO-2013159582 | Oct 2013 | WO |
WO-2015178944 | Nov 2015 | WO |
WO-2015167493 | Nov 2015 | WO |
WO-2017019079 | Feb 2017 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Alvarez C., “Back to Basics: Deduplication,” (Web Page), Net App, Tech OnTap Newsletter, Mar. 3, 2011, 7 pages, available at http://community.netapp.com/t5/Tech-OnTap-Articles/Back-to-Basics-Deduplication/ta-p/84888. |
Black, D.L., “SDC-3—Thin Provisioning: Anchored,” EMC Corporation, Mar. 10, 2010, T10/09-272r6, 16 pages. |
Evans, M., “Information Technology—SCSI Black Commands—3 (SBC-3),” (Research Paper), Oct. 27, 2010, Working Draft Project American National Standard, T10/1799-D, 274 pages, available at http://www.13thmonkey.org/documentation/SCSI/sbc3r25.pdf. |
Gilbert, D. “XCOPY and ODX in ddpt utility,” (Research Paper), Dec. 27, 2014, 8 pages, available at http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt_xcopy_odx.html. |
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., “HP StoreOnce D2D: Understanding the Challenges Associated With NetApp's Deduplication,” (Research Paper), Jan. 2011; Business white paper, 8 pages, available at https://www.mercurymagazines.com/pdf/NCHPINTELJMPDD1.pdf. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/036045, dated Jan. 26, 2015, 11 pages. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT Application No. PCT/US2015/042831, dated Apr. 26, 2016, 13 pages. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT Application No. PCTUS2014/062622, dated Jul. 21, 2015, 13 pages. |
Osuna, A. et al., “IBM Storage Data Deduplication Solutions,” (Research Paper), First Edition, Redbooks, Feb. 1, 2011, 328 pages, available at https://www.e-techservices.com/redbooks/DataDeduplicationSolutions.pdf. |
Matt Kixmoeller, “Not Your Momma's Deduplication,” Jan. 12, 2012, Pure Storage Blog, (Web Page), <http://blog.purestorage.com/not-your-mommas-deduplication/>. |
Saxena, M. et al, “FlashVM: Virtual Memory Management on Flash,” (Research Paper), USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2010, 14 pages, available at https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/usenix10/tech/full_papers/Saxena.pdf. |
Sliwa, C., “Primary Storage Deduplication Options Expanding,” (Web Page), Jan. 2012, 8 pages, available at http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/tip/Primary-storage-deduplication-options-expanding. |
Storage Networking Industry Association, “Hypervisor Storage Interfaces for Storage Optimization White Paper,” (Research Paper), Copy Offload Hypervisor Storage Interfaces, Jun. 2010, 44 pages, available at http://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/HSI_Copy_Offload_WP-r12.pdf. |
Symantec Corporation, “About Deduplication Fingerprinting,” (Web Page), Jan. 17, 2011 2 pages, available at http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=HOWTO36304. |
Symantec, “Veritas Storage Foundation™ from Symantec,” (Research Paper), Data Sheet: Storage Management, 2011, 5 pages, available at http://www.federalnewsradio.com/pdfs/SYMANTECbveritasstoragefoundationDS21213907enus.pdf. |
Weber, R., “XCOPYv2: Copy Offload with Extended Copy (Introduction),” (Research Paper), available Jan. 2011, T10/11-077r0. |
Wikipedia, “Reference Counting,” See lines 1-2, Nov. 14, 2012, 8 pages, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20121114161651/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_counting. |
Berrey, A., “Content-Addressable Distributed File System (“Keep”),” (Research Paper), Apr. 17, 2013, 5 pages, available at https://arvados.org/projects/arvados/wiki/Keep. |
Bonwick, J., “ZFS Deduplication,” (Research Paper), Nov. 1, 2009, 21 pages, available at https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_dedup. |
Brown, N., “In-band Deduplication for Btrfs,” (Research Paper), Mar. 9, 2016, 9 pages, available at https://lwn.net/Articles/679031/. |
Floyd, J., “Deduplication and Encryption,” (Web Page), Permabit, Aug. 28, 2009, 4 pages, available at http://permabit.com/deduplication-and-encryption/. |
Hayes, J., “Excerpts from video: Building Commercial Storage Systems from Consumer SSDs,” Oct. 1, 2012, https://vimeo.com/50557873. |
Hayes, J., “Building Commercial Storage Systems from Consumer SSDs,” Oct. 1, 2012, (Presentation Slides), http://www.snia.org/sites/default/orig/SDC2012/presentations/Solid_State/JohnHayes_Enterprise_Storage_Systems.pdf. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/047596, dated Jan. 28, 2015, 11 pages. |
Nath, P., “Evaluating the Usefulness of Content Addressable Storage for High-Performance Data Intensive Applications,” (Research Paper), Jun. 2008, 10 pages, http://www.cse.psu.edu/˜bhuvan/papers/ps/cas-hpdc08.pdf. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability received in PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/057507, dated Mar. 28, 2017, 9 pages. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/057507, dated May 19, 2015, 13 pages. |
Wikipedia, “Double hashing,” May 12, 2014, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Double_hashing&oldid=608293366>. |
Wikipedia, “Hash table,” Aug. 25, 2014, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hash_table&oldid=622699135>. |
Wikipedia, “Linear probing,” Jul. 17, 2014, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linear_probing&oldid=617276154>. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170300266 A1 | Oct 2017 | US |