Allmydata "Tahoe" Architecture OVERVIEW The high-level view of this system consists of three layers: the mesh, the virtual drive, and the application that sits on top. The lowest layer is the "mesh" or "cloud", basically a DHT (Distributed Hash Table) which maps URIs to data. The URIs are relatively-short ascii strings (currently about 140 bytes), and they are used as references to an immutable arbitrary-length sequence of data bytes. This data is distributed around the cloud in a large number of nodes, such that a statistically unlikely number of nodes would have to be unavailable for the data to be unavailable. The middle layer is the virtual drive: a tree-shaped data structure in which the intermediate nodes are directories and the leaf nodes are files. Each file contains both the URI of the file's data and all the necessary metadata (MIME type, filename, ctime/mtime, etc) required to present the file to a user in a meaningful way (displaying it in a web browser, or on a desktop). The top layer is where the applications that use this virtual drive operate. Allmydata uses this for a backup service, in which the application copies the files to be backed up from the local disk into the virtual drive on a periodic basis. By providing read-only access to the same virtual drive later, a user can recover older versions of their files. Other sorts of applications can run on top of the virtual drive, of course, anything that has a use for a secure, robust, distributed filestore. Note: some of the description below indicates design targets rather than actual code present in the current release. Please take a look at roadmap.txt to get an idea of how much of this has been implemented so far. THE BIG CLOUD OF PEERS Underlying the mesh/cloud is a large collection of peer nodes. These are processes running on a wide variety of computers, all of which know about each other in some way or another. They establish TCP connections to one another using Foolscap, an encrypted+authenticated remote message passing library (using TLS connections and self-authenticating identifiers called "FURLs"). Each peer offers certain services to the others. The primary service is the StorageServer, which offers to hold data for a limited period of time (a "lease"). Each StorageServer has a quota, and it will reject lease requests that would cause it to consume more space than it wants to provide. When a lease expires, the data is deleted. Peers might renew their leases. This storage is used to hold "shares", which are themselves used to store files in the mesh. There are many shares for each file, typically around 100 (the exact number depends upon the tradeoffs made between reliability, overhead, and storage space consumed). The files are indexed by a piece of the URI called the "verifierid", which is derived from the contents of the file. Leases are indexed by verifierid, and a single StorageServer may hold multiple shares for the corresponding file. Multiple peers can hold leases on the same file, in which case the shares will be kept alive until the last lease expires. The typical lease is expected to be for one month: enough time for interested parties to renew it, but not so long that abandoned data consumes unreasonable space. Peers are expected to "delete" (drop leases) on data that they know they no longer want: lease expiration is meant as a safety measure. In this release, peers learn about each other through the "introducer". Each peer connects to this central introducer at startup, and receives a list of all other peers from it. Each peer then connects to all other peers, creating a full-mesh topology. Future versions will reduce the number of connections considerably, to enable the mesh to scale larger than a full-mesh allows. FILE ENCODING When a file is to be added to the mesh, it is first encrypted using a key that is derived from the hash of the file itself. The encrypted file is then broken up into segments so it can be processed in small pieces (to minimize the memory footprint of both encode and decode operations, and to increase the so-called "alacrity": how quickly can the download operation provide validated data to the user). Each segment is erasure coded, which creates encoded blocks that are larger than the input segment, such that only a subset of the output blocks are required to reconstruct the segment. These blocks are then combined into "shares", such that a subset of the shares can be used to reconstruct the whole file. The shares are then deposited in StorageServers in other peers. A tagged hash of the original file is called the "fileid", while a differently-tagged hash of the original file provides the encryption key. A tagged hash of the *encrypted* file is called the "verifierid", and is used for both peer selection (described below) and to index shares within the StorageServers on the selected peers. The URI contains the verifierid, the encryption key, any encoding parameters necessary to perform the eventual decoding process, and some additional hashes that allow the download process to validate the data it receives. On the download side, the node that wishes to turn a URI into a sequence of bytes will obtain the necessary shares from remote nodes, break them into blocks, use erasure-decoding to turn them into segments of crypttext, use the decryption key to convert that into plaintext, then emit the plaintext bytes to the output target (which could be a file on disk, or it could be streamed directly to a web browser or media player). All hashes use SHA256, and a different tag is used for each purpose. Netstrings are used where necessary to insure these tags cannot be confused with the data to be hashed. All encryption uses AES in CTR mode. The erasure coding is performed with zfec (a python wrapper around Rizzo's FEC library). A Merkle Hash Tree is used to validate the encoded blocks before they are fed into the decode process, and a second tree is used to validate the shares before they are retrieved. The hash tree root is put into the URI. URIs Each URI represents a specific set of bytes. Think of it like a hash function: you feed in a bunch of bytes, and you get out a URI. The URI is deterministically derived from the input data: changing even one bit of the input data will result in a drastically different URI. The URI provides both "identification" and "location": you can use it to locate a set of bytes that are probably the same as the original file, and you can also use it to validate that these potential bytes are indeed the ones that you were looking for. URIs refer to an immutable set of bytes. If you modify a file and upload the new one to the mesh, you will get a different URI. URIs do not represent filenames at all, just the data that a filename might point to at some given point in time. This is why the "mesh" layer is insufficient to provide a virtual drive: an actual filesystem requires human-meaningful names and mutability, while URIs provide neither. URIs sit on the "global+secure" edge of Zooko's Triangle[1]. They are self-authenticating, meaning that nobody can trick you into using the wrong data. The URI should be considered as a "read capability" for the corresponding data: anyone who knows the full URI has the ability to read the given data. There is a subset of the URI (which leaves out the encryption key and fileid) which is called the "verification capability": it allows the holder to retrieve and validate the crypttext, but not the plaintext. Once the crypttext is available, the erasure-coded shares can be regenerated. This will allow a file-repair process to maintain and improve the robustness of files without being able to read their contents. The lease mechanism will also involve a "delete" capability, by which a peer which uploaded a file can indicate that they don't want it anymore. It is not truly a delete capability because other peers might be holding leases on the same data, and it should not be deleted until the lease count (i.e. reference count) goes to zero, so perhaps "cancel-the-lease capability" is more accurate. The plan is to store this capability next to the URI in the virtual drive structure. PEER SELECTION When a file is uploaded, the encoded shares are sent to other peers. But to which ones? The "peer selection" algorithm is used to make this choice. In the current version, the verifierid is used to consistently-permute the set of all peers (by sorting the peers by HASH(verifierid+peerid)). This places the peers around a 2^256-sized ring, like the rim of a big clock. The 100-or-so shares are then placed around the same ring (at 0, 1/100*2^256, 2/100*2^256, ... 99/100*2^256). Imagine that we start at 0 with an empty basket in hand and proceed clockwise. When we come to a share, we pick it up and put it in the basket. When we come to a peer, we ask that peer if they will give us a lease for every share in our basket. The peer will grant us leases for some of those shares and reject others (if they are full or almost full). If they reject all our requests, we remove them from the ring, because they are full and thus unhelpful. Each share they accept is removed from the basket. The remainder stay in the basket as we continue walking clockwise. We keep walking, accumulating shares and distributing them to peers, until either we find a home for all shares, or there are no peers left in the ring (because they are all full). If we run out of peers before we run out of shares, the upload may be considered a failure, depending upon how many shares we were able to place. The current parameters try to place 100 shares, of which 25 must be retrievable to recover the file, and the peer selection algorithm is happy if it was able to place at least 75 shares. These numbers are adjustable: 25-out-of-100 means an expansion factor of 4x (every file in the mesh consumes four times as much space when totalled across all StorageServers), but is highly reliable (the actual reliability is a binomial distribution function of the expected availability of the individual peers, but in general it goes up very quickly with the expansion factor). If the file has been uploaded before (or if two uploads are happening at the same time), a peer might already have shares for the same file we are proposing to send to them. In this case, those shares are removed from the list and assumed to be available (or will be soon). This reduces the number of uploads that must be performed. When downloading a file, the current release just asks all known peers for any shares they might have, chooses the minimal necessary subset, then starts downloading and processing those shares. A later release will use the full algorithm to reduce the number of queries that must be sent out. This algorithm uses the same consistent-hashing permutation as on upload, but instead of one walker with one basket, we have 100 walkers (one per share). They each proceed clockwise until they find a peer: this peer is the most likely to be the same one to which the share was originally uploaded, and is put on the "A" list. The next peer that each walker encounters is put on the "B" list, etc. All the "A" list peers are asked for any shares they might have. If enough of them can provide a share, the download phase begins and those shares are retrieved and decoded. If not, the "B" list peers are contacted, etc. This routine will eventually find all the peers that have shares, and will find them quickly if there is significant overlap between the set of peers that were present when the file was uploaded and the set of peers that are present as it is downloaded (i.e. if the "peerlist stability" is high). Some limits may be imposed in large meshes to avoid querying a million peers; this provides a tradeoff between the work spent to discover that a file is unrecoverable and the probability that a retrieval will fail when it couldhave succeeded if we had just tried a little bit harder. The appropriate value of this tradeoff will depend upon the size of the mesh. Other peer selection algorithms are being evaluated. One of them (known as "tahoe 2") uses the same consistent hash, starts at 0 and requests one lease per peer until it gets 100 of them. This is likely to get better overlap (since a single insertion or deletion will still leave 99 overlapping peers), but is non-ideal in other ways (TODO: what were they?). Another algorithm (known as "denver airport"[2]) uses the permuted hash to decide on an approximate target for each share, then sends lease requests via Chord routing (to avoid maintaining a large number of long-term connections). The request includes the contact information of the uploading node, and asks that the node which eventually accepts the lease should contact the uploader directly. The shares are then transferred over direct connections rather than through multiple Chord hops. Download uses the same approach. FILETREE: THE VIRTUAL DRIVE LAYER The "virtual drive" layer is responsible for mapping human-meaningful pathnames (directories and filenames) to pieces of data. The actual bytes inside these files are referenced by URI, but the "filetree" is where the directory names, file names, and metadata are kept. The current release has a very simplistic filetree model. There is a single globally-shared directory structure, which maps filename to URI. This structure is maintained in a central node (which happens to be the same node that houses the Introducer), by writing URIs to files in a local filesystem. A future release (probably the next one) will offer each application the ability to have a separate file tree. Each tree can reference others. Some trees are redirections, while others actually contain subdirectories full of filenames. The redirections may be mutable by some users but not by others, allowing both read-only and read-write views of the same data. This will enable individual users to have their own personal space, with links to spaces that are shared with specific other users, and other spaces that are globally visible. Eventually the application layer will present these pieces in a way that allows the sharing of a specific file or the creation of a "virtual CD" as easily as dragging a folder onto a user icon. The URIs described above are "Content Hash Key" (CHK) identifiers[3], in which the identifier refers to a specific sequence of bytes. In this project, CHK identifiers are used for both files and immutable directories (the tree of directory and file nodes are serialized into a sequence of bytes, which is then uploaded and turned into a URI). There is a separate kind of upload, not yet implemented, called SSK (short for Signed Subspace Key), in which the URI refers to a mutable slot. Some users have a write-capability to this slot, allowing them to change the data that it refers to. Others only have a read-capability, merely letting them read the current contents. These SSK slots can be used to provide mutability in the filetree, so that users can actually change the contents of their virtual drive. Redirection nodes can also provide mutability, such as a central service which allows a user to set the current URI of their top-level filetree. SSK slots provide a decentralized way to accomplish this mutability, whereas centralized redirection nodes are more vulnerable to single-point-of-failure issues. FILE REPAIRER Each node is expected to explicitly drop leases on files that it knows it no longer wants (the "delete" operation). Nodes are also expected to renew leases on files that still exist in their filetrees. When nodes are offline for an extended period of time, their files may decay (both because of leases expiring and because of StorageServers going offline). A File Verifier is used to check on the health of any given file, and a File Repairer is used to to keep desired files alive. The two are conceptually distinct (the repairer is run if the verifier decides it is necessary), but in practice they will be closely related, and may run in the same process. The repairer process does not get the full URI of the file to be maintained: it merely gets the "repairer capability" subset, which does not include the decryption key. The File Verifier uses that data to find out which peers ought to hold shares for this file, and to see if those peers are still around and willing to provide the data. If the file is not healthy enough, the File Repairer is invoked to download the crypttext, regenerate any missing shares, and upload them to new peers. The goal of the File Repairer is to finish up with a full set of 100 shares. There are a number of engineering issues to be resolved here. The bandwidth, disk IO, and CPU time consumed by the verification/repair process must be balanced against the robustness that it provides to the mesh. The nodes involved in repair will have very different access patterns than normal nodes, such that these processes may need to be run on hosts with more memory or network connectivity than usual. The frequency of repair runs directly affects the resources consumed. In some cases, verification of multiple files can be performed at the same time, and repair of files can be delegated off to other nodes. The security model we are currently using assumes that peers who claim to hold a share will actually provide it when asked. (We validate the data they provide before using it in any way, but if enough peers claim to hold the data and are wrong, the file will not be repaired, and may decay beyond recoverability). There are several interesting approaches to mitigate this threat, ranging from challenges to provide a keyed hash of the allegedly-held data (using "buddy nodes", in which two peers hold the same block, and check up on each other), to the original MojoNation economic model. SECURITY Data validity (the promise that the downloaded data will match the originally uploaded data) is provided by the hash embedded the URI. Data security (the promise that the data is only readable by people with the URI) is provided by the encryption key embedded in the URI. Data availability (the hope that data which has been uploaded in the past will be downloadable in the future) is provided by the mesh, which distributes failures in a way that reduces the correspondence between individual node failure and file recovery failure. The capability-based security model is used throughout this project. Filetree operations are expressed in terms of distinct read and write capabilities. The URI of a file is the read-capability: knowing the URI is equivalent to the ability to read the corresponding data. RELIABILITY File encoding and peer selection parameters can be adjusted to achieve different goals. Each choice results in a number of properties; there are many tradeoffs. First, some terms: the erasure-coding algorithm is described as K-out-of-N (for this release, the default values are K=25 and N=100). Each mesh will have some number of peers; this number will rise and fall over time as peers join, drop out, come back, and leave forever. Files are of various sizes, some are popular, others are rare. Peers have various capacities, variable upload/download bandwidths, and network latency. Most of the mathematical models that look at peer failure assume some average (and independent) probability 'P' of a given peer being available: this can be high (servers tend to be online and available >90% of the time) or low (laptops tend to be turned on for an hour then disappear for several days). Files are encoded in segments of a given maximum size, which affects memory usage. The ratio of N/K is the "expansion factor". Higher expansion factors improve reliability very quickly (the binomial distribution curve is very sharp), but consumes much more mesh capacity. The absolute value of K affects the granularity of the binomial curve (1-out-of-2 is much worse than 50-out-of-100), but high values asymptotically approach a constant that depends upon 'P' (i.e. 500-of-1000 is not much better than 50-of-100). Likewise, the total number of peers in the network affects the same granularity: having only one peer means a single point of failure, no matter how many copies of the file you make. Independent peers (with uncorrelated failures) are necessary to hit the mathematical ideals: if you have 100 nodes but they are all in the same office building, then a single power failure will take out all of them at once. The "Sybil Attack" is where a single attacker convinces you that they are actually multiple servers, so that you think you are using a large number of independent peers, but in fact you have a single point of failure (where the attacker turns off all their machines at once). Large meshes, with lots of truly-independent peers, will enable the use of lower expansion factors to achieve the same reliability, but increase overhead because each peer needs to know something about every other, and the rate at which peers come and go will be higher (requiring network maintenance traffic). Also, the File Repairer work will increase with larger meshes, although then the job can be distributed out to more peers. Higher values of N increase overhead: more shares means more Merkle hashes that must be included with the data, and more peers to contact to retrieve the shares. Smaller segment sizes reduce memory usage (since each segment must be held in memory while erasure coding runs) and increases "alacrity" (since downloading can validate a smaller piece of data faster, delivering it to the target sooner), but also increase overhead (because more blocks means more Merkle hashes to validate them). In general, small private meshes should work well, but the participants will have to decide between storage overhead and reliability. Large stable meshes will be able to reduce the expansion factor down to a bare minimum while still retaining high reliability, but large unstable meshes (where nodes are coming and going very quickly) may require more repair/verification bandwidth than actual upload/download traffic. ------------------------------ [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle [2]: all of these names are derived from the location where they were concocted, in this case in a car ride from Boulder to DEN [3]: the terms CHK and SSK come from Freenet, http://wiki.freenetproject.org/FreenetCHKPages , although we use "SSK" in a slightly different way