Proactive Storage Management via Command Latency Constraints

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Distributed storage systems often face challenges in meeting strict quality-of-service (QoS) requirements during peak loads, leading to delays, latency, and failures due to insufficient processing capabilities, which can result in storage devices failing to meet expected performance specifications.

Innovation Solution

A proactive storage management system that includes a processor coupled with multiple storage devices, capable of generating storage requests with command processing time constraints, receiving proactive responses indicating execution timelines, and selecting fallback mechanisms based on device states such as hardware failures or processing loads to ensure timely execution of storage commands.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If storage devices handle high volumes of requests during peak loads, then productivity increases, but reliability deteriorates due to latency, delays, and failures

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverequest processing volumeVSAvoidQoS specification compliance

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The storage device proactively evaluates incoming storage requests against current device state and QoS specifications before execution. By performing this evaluation in advance, the system can identify requests that would cause QoS violations and reject them before they impact system performance, thereby maintaining reliability during high-volume periods

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors device state metrics (processing load, latency, queue depth) and uses this feedback to dynamically evaluate incoming requests. This closed-loop feedback mechanism allows the storage device to adapt its request acceptance decisions based on real-time conditions, ensuring QoS compliance while maximizing throughput

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Productivity

If storage devices process more requests to meet demand, then productivity increases, but loss of time increases due to delayed results and latency

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverequest completion rateVSAvoidcommand execution latency

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The storage device performs a preliminary feasibility check that includes estimating the time required to execute the requested command against current device state. This preliminary time assessment allows the system to reject requests that would exceed time constraints before they are queued for execution, preventing time loss from the outset

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system proactively prevents time loss by rejecting requests that would cause latency violations before they can execute. This preliminary anti-action counteracts the potential harm of delayed results by stopping problematic requests at the evaluation stage, thereby maintaining timely execution for accepted requests

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

3Productivity

If storage devices operate at full capacity to maximize throughput, then productivity increases, but reliability deteriorates due to processing overload and failures

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedata processing throughputVSAvoidprocessing stability

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The request evaluation mechanism dynamically adjusts acceptance criteria based on real-time device state metrics such as processing load, queue depth, and current throughput. This dynamic adaptation allows the system to operate near full capacity when conditions permit while automatically reducing acceptance thresholds when overload risks emerge, maintaining both productivity and stability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system builds in a protective buffer by evaluating requests against current state and rejecting those that would push the device beyond safe operating limits. This beforehand cushioning prevents processing overload and failures by maintaining headroom in the system, ensuring stability is preserved even during high-throughput periods

Inventive Principle:

Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Data Source

PatentUS11681466B2Proactive storage operation management

Publication Date: 2023.06.20 SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC

AI summary

Example storage systems, storage devices, and methods provide proactive management of storage operations to, for example, beneficially minimize bottlenecking, latency, and other issues. An example system has a storage pool with a first storage device and a second storage device, and a processor configured to generate a storage request including a storage command, include a command processing time constraint in the storage request, send the storage request to the first storage device, and receive, from the first storage device, a proactive response including an estimation for an execution of the storage command by the first storage device based on the command processing time constraint. The processor may then select a fallback mechanism for executing the storage command based on the proactive response.