Note This repository is a fork of github.com/hashicorp/raft-wal. It has been heavily simplified for Polar Signals' use case. The original README has been left intact so might refer to non-existent features.

This library implements a Write-Ahead Log (WAL) suitable for use with hashicorp/raft.

Specifically the library provides and instance of raft's LogStore and StableStore interfaces for storing both raft logs and the other small items that require stable storage (like which term the node last voted in).

This library is still considered experimental!

It is complete and reasonably well tested so far but we plan to complete more rigorous end-to-end testing and performance analysis within our products and together with some of our users before we consider this safe for production.

The advantage of this library over hashicorp/raft-boltdb that has been used for many years in HashiCorp products are:

1. Efficient truncations that don't cause later appends to slow down due to free space tracking issues in BoltDB's btree.
2. More efficient appends due to only one fsync per append vs two in BoltDB.
3. More efficient and suitable on-disk structure for a log vs a copy-on-write BTree.

We aim to provide roughly equivalent resiliency to crashes as respected storage systems such as SQLite, LevelDB/RocksDB and etcd. BoltDB technically has a stronger property due to it's page-aligned model (no partial sector overwrites). We initially designed a WAL on the same principals, however felt that the additional complexity it adds wasn't justified given the weaker assumptions that many other battle-tested systems above use.

Our design goals for crash recovery are:

• Crashes at any point must not loose committed log entries or result in a corrupt file, even if in-flight sector writes are not atomic.
• We do assume Powersafe Overwrites where partial sectors can be appended to without corrupting existing data even in a power failure.
• Latent errors (i.e. silent corruption in the FS or disk) may be detected during a read, but we assume that the file-system and disk are responsible for this really. (i.e. we don't validate checksums on every record read). This is equivalent to SQLite, LMDB, BoltDB etc.

See the system assumptions and crash safety sections for more details.

Here are some notable (but we think acceptable) limitations of this design.

• Segment files can't be larger than 4GiB. (Current default is 64MiB).
• Individual records can't be larger than 4GiB without changing the format. (Current limit is 64MiB).
• Appended log entries must have monotonically increasing Index fields with no gaps (though may start at any index in an empty log).
• Only head or tail truncations are supported. DeleteRange will error if the range is not a prefix of suffix of the log. hashicorp/raft never needs that.
• No encryption or compression support.
  • Though we do provide a pluggable entry codec and internally treat each entry as opaque bytes so it's possible to supply a custom codec that transforms entries in any way desired.
• If the segment tail file is lost after entries are committed to it due to manual intervention or filesystem bug, the WAL can't distinguish that from a crash during rotation that left the file missing since we don't update metadata on every append for performance reasons. In most other cases, missing data would be detected on recovery and fail the recovery to protect from silent data loss, but in this particular case that's not possible without significantly impacting performance in the steady state by updating the last committed entry to meta DB on every append. We assume this is reasonable since previous LogStore implementations would also "silently" loose data if the database files were removed too.

The WAL has two types of file: a meta store and one or more log segments.

We need to provide a StableStore interface for small amounts of Raft data. We also need to store some meta data about log segments to simplify managing them in an atomic and crash-safe way.

Since this data is generally small we could invent our own storage format with some sort of double-buffering and limit ourselves to a single page of data etc. But since performance is not critical for meta-data operations and size is extremely unlikely to get larger than a few KiB, we choose instead the pragmatic approach of using BoltDB for our wal-meta.db.

The meta database contains two buckets: stable containing key/values persisted by Raft via the StableStore interface, and wal-state which contains the source-of-truth meta data about which segment files should be considered part of the current log.

The wal-state bucket contains one record with all the state since it's only loaded or persisted in one atomic batch and is small. The state is just a JSON encoded object described by the following structs. JSON encoding is used as this is not performance sensitive and it's simpler to work with and more human readable.

type PersistentState struct {
	NextSegmentID uint64
	Segments      []SegmentInfo
}
type SegmentInfo struct {
  ID         uint64
  BaseIndex  uint64
  MinIndex   uint64
  MaxIndex   uint64
  Codec      uint64
  IndexStart uint64
  CreateTime time.Time
  SealTime   time.Time
}

The last segment (with highest baseIndex) is the "tail" and must be the only one where SealTime = 0 (i.e. it's unsealed). IndexStart and MaxIndex are also zero until the segments is sealed.

Why use BoltDB when the main reason for this library is because the existing BoltDB LogStore has performance issues?

Well, the major performance issue in raft-boltdb occurs when a large amount of log data is written and then truncated, the overhead of tracking all the free space in the file makes further appends slower.

Our use here is orders of magnitude lighter than storing all log data. As an example, let's assume we allow 100GiB of logs to be kept around which is at least an order of magnitude larger than the largest current known Consul user's worst-case log size, and two orders of magnitude more than the largest Consul deployments steady-state. Assuming fixed 64MiB segments, that would require about 1600 segments which encode to about 125 bytes in JSON each. Even at this extreme, the meta DB only has to hold under 200KiB.

Even if a truncation occurs that reduces that all the way back to a single segment, 200KiB is only a hundred or so pages (allowing for btree overhead) so the free list will never be larger than a single 4KB page.

On top of that, we only pay the cost of a write to BoltDB for meta-data transactions: rotating to a new segment, or truncating. The vast majority of appends only need to append to a log segment.

Segment files are pre-allocated (if supported by the filesystem) on creation to a fixed size. By default we use 64MiB segment files. This sections defines the encoding for those files. All integer types are encoded in little-endian order.

The file starts with a fixed-size header that is written once before the first comitted entries.

0      1      2      3      4      5      6      7      8
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Magic                     | Reserved           | Vsn  |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| BaseIndex                                             |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SegmentID                                             |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Codec                                                 |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

Each segment file is named <BaseIndex>-<SegmentID>.wal. BaseIndex is formatted in decimal with leading zeros and a fixed width of 20 chars. SegmentID is formatted in lower-case hex with zero padding to 16 chars wide. This has the nice property of them sorting lexicographically in the directory, although we don't rely on that.

Log entries are stored in consecutive frames after the header. As well as log entry frames there are a few meta data frame types too. Each frame starts with an 8-byte header.

0      1      2      3      4      5      6      7      8
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Type | Reserved           | Length/CRC                |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

An index frame payload is an array of uint32 file offsets for the correspoinding records. The first element of the array contains the file offset of the frame containing the first entry in the segment and so on.

Length is used to indicate the length in bytes of the array (i.e. number of entries in the segments is Length/4).

Index frames are written only when the segment is sealed and a commit frame follows to validate the final write.

A Commit frame marks the last write before fsync is called. In order to detect incomplete or torn writes on recovery the commit frame stores a CRC of all the bytes appended since the last fsync.

CRC is used to specify a CRC32 (Castagnoli) over all bytes written since the last fsync. That is, since just after the last commit frame, or just after the file header.

There may also be 4 bytes of padding to keep alignment. Later we could use these too.

All frame headers are written with 8-byte alignment to ensure they remain in a single disk sector. We don't entirely depend on atomic sector writes for correctness, but it's a simple way to improve our chances or being able to read through the file on a recovery with some sectors missing.

We add an implicit 0-7 null bytes after each frame to ensure the next frame header is aligned. This padding is not represented in Length but it is always present and is deterministic by rounding up Length to the nearest multiple of 8. It is always accounted for when reading and CRCs are calculated over raw bytes written so always include the padding (zero) bytes.

Despite alignment we still don't blindly trust the headers we read are valid. A CRC mismatch or invalid record format indicate torn writes in the last batch written and we always safety check the size of lengths read before allocating memory for them - Entry lengths can't be bigger than the MaxEntrySize which we default to 64MiB.

Once a segment file has grown larger than the configured soft-limit (64MiB default), we "seal" it. This process involves:

1. Write out the in-memory index of record offsets to an index frame.
2. Write a commit frame to validate all bytes appended in this final append (which probably included one or more records that took the segment file over the limit).
3. Return the final IndexStart to be stored in wal-meta.db

Sealed files can have their indexes read directly on open from the IndexStart in wal-meta.db so records can be looked up in constant time.

For an unsealed segment we first lookup the offset in the in-memory index.

For a sealed segment we can discover the index frame location from the metadata and then perform a read at the right location in the file to lookup the record's offset. Implementations may choose to cache or memory-map the index array but we will initially just read the specific entry we need each time and assume the OS page cache will make that fast for frequently accessed index areas or in-order traversals. We don't have to read the whole index, just the 4 byte entry we care about since we can work out it's offset from IndexStart, the BaseIndex of the segment, and the Index being searched for.

Crash safety must be maintained through three type of write operation: appending a batch of entries, truncating from the head (oldest) entries, and truncating the newest entries.

We want to fsync only once for an append batch, however many entries were in it. We assume Powersafe Overwrites or PSOW, a weaker assumption than atomic sector writes in general. Thanks to PSOW, we assume we can start appending at the tail of the file right after previously committed entries even if the new entries will be written to the same sector as the older entries, and that the system will never corrupt the already committed part of the sector even if it is not atomic and arbitrarily garbles the part of the sector we actually did write.

At the end of the batch we write a Commit frame containing the CRC over the data written during the current batch.

In a crash one of the following states occurs:

1. All sectors modified across all frames make it to disk (crash after fsync).
2. A torn write: one or more sectors, anywhere in the modified tail of the file might not be persisted. We don't assume they are zero, they might be arbitrarily garbled (crash before fsync).

We can check which one of these is true with the recovery procedure outlined below. If we find the last batch was torn. It must not have been acknowledged to Raft yet (since fsync can't have returned) and so it is safe to assume that the previous commit frame is the tail of the log we've actually acknowledged.

We cover recovering the segments generally below since we have to account for truncations. All segments except the tail were fsynced during seal before the new tail was added to the meta DB so we can assume they are all made it to disk if a later tail was added.

On startup we just need to recover the tail log as follows:

1. If the file doesn't exist, create it from Meta DB information. DONE.
2. Open file and validate header matches filename. If not delete it and go to 1.
3. Read all records in the file in sequence, keeping track of the last two commit frames observed.
   1. If the file ends with a corrupt frame or non commit frame, discard anything after the last commit frame. We're DONE because we wouldn't have written extra frames after commit until fsync completed so this commit must have been acknowledged.
   2. Else the file ends with a commit frame. Validate its checksum. If it is good DONE.
   3. If CRC is not good then discard everything back to previous commit frame and DONE.
4. If we read an index frame in that process and the commit frame proceeding it is the new tail then mark the segment as sealed and return the seal info (crash occured after seal but before updating wal-meta.db)

The most common form of truncation is a "head" truncation or removing the oldest prefix of entries after a periodic snapshot has been made to reclaim space.

To be crash safe we can't rely on atomically updating or deleting multiple segment files. The process looks like this.

1. In one transaction on Meta DB:
   1. Update the meta.min_index to be the new min.
   2. Delete any segments from the segments bucket that are sealed and where their highest index is less than the new min index.
   3. Commit Txn. This is the commit point for crash recovery.
2. Update in memory segment state to match (if not done already with a lock held).
3. Delete any segment files we just removed from the meta DB.

The meta data update is crash safe thanks to BoltDB being the source of truth.

1. Reload meta state from Meta DB.
2. Walk the files in the dir.
3. For each one:
   1. Check if that file is present in Meta DB. If not mark it for deletion.
   2. (optionally) validate the file header file size and final block trailer to ensure the file appears to be well-formed and contain the expected data.
4. Delete the obsolete segments marked (could be done in a background thread).

Raft occasionally needs to truncate entries from the tail of the log, i.e. remove the most recent N entries. This can occur when a follower has replicated entries from an old leader that was partitioned with it, but later discovers they conflict with entries committed by the new leader in a later term. The bounds on how long a partitioned leader can continue to replicate to a follower are generally pretty small (30 seconds or so) so it's unlikely that the number of records to be truncated will ever be large compared to the size of a segment file, but we have to account for needing to delete one or more segment files from the tail, as well as truncate older entries out of the new tail.

This follows roughly the same pattern as head-truncation, although there is an added complication. A naive implementation that used only the baseIndex as a segment file name could in theory get into a tricky state where it's ambiguous whether the tail segment is an old one that was logically truncated away but we crashed before actually unlinking, or a new replacement with committed data in.

It's possible to solve this with complex transactional semantics but we take the simpler approach of just assigning every segment a unique identifier separate from it's baseIndex. So to truncate the tail follows the same procedure as the head above: segments we remove from Meta DB can be un-ambiguously deleted on recovery because their IDs won't match even if later segments end up with the same baseIndex.

Since these truncations are generally rare and disk space is generally not a major bottleneck, we also choose not to try to actually re-use a segment file that was previously written and sealed by truncating it etc. Instead we just mark it as "sealed" in the Meta DB and with a MaxIndex of the highest index left after the truncation (which we check on reads) and start a new segment at the next index.

There are no straight answers to any question about which guarantees can be reliably relied on across operating systems, file systems, raid controllers and hardware devices. We state our assumptions followed by a summary of the assumptions made by some other respectable sources for comparison.

We've tried to make the weakest assumptions we can while still keeping things relatively simple and performant.

We assume:

1. That while silent latent errors are possible, they are generally rare and there's not a whole lot we can do other than return a Corrupt error on read. In most cases the hardware or filesystem will detect and return an error on read anyway for latent corruption. Not doing so is regarded as a bug in the OS/filesystem/hardware. For this reason we don't go out of our way to checksum everything to protect against "bitrot". This is roughly equivalent to assumptions in BoltDB, LMDB and SQLite.

   While we respect the work in Protocol Aware Recovery for Consensus-based Storage we choose not to implement a WAL format that allows identifying the index and term of "lost" records on read errors so they can be recovered from peers. This is mostly for the pragmatic reason that the Raft library this is designed to work with would need a major re-write to take advantage of that anyway. The proposed format in that paper also seems to make stronger assumptions about sector atomicity than we are comfortable with too.

2. That sector writes are not atomic. (Equivalent to SQLite, weaker than almost everything else).

3. That writing a partial sector does not corrupt any already stored data in that sector outside of the range being written ( PSOW), (Equivalent to SQLite's defaults, RocksDB and Etcd).

4. That fsync as implemented in Go's standard library actually flushes all written sectors of the file to persistent media.

5. That fsync on a parent dir is sufficient to ensure newly created files are not lost after a crash (assuming the file itself was written and fsynced first).

6. That appending to files may not be atomic since the filesystem metadata about the size of the file may not be updated atomically with the data. Generally we pre-allocate files where possible without writing all zeros but we do potentially extend them if the last batch doesn't fit into the allocated space or the filesystem doesn't support pre-allocation. Either way we don't rely on the filesystem's reported size and validate the tail is coherent on recovery.

In the paper on Protocol Aware Recovery for Consensus-based Storage the authors assume that corruptions of the log can happen due to either torn writes (for multi-sector appends) or latent corruptions after commit. They explain the need to detect which it was because torn writes only loose un-acknowledged records and so are safe to detect and truncate, while corruption of previously committed records impacts the correctness of the protocol more generally. Their whole paper seems to indicate that these post-commit corruptions are a major problem that needs to be correctly handled (which may well be true). On the flip side, their WAL format design writes a separate index and log, and explicitly assumes that because the index entries are smaller than a 512 sector size, that those are safe from corruption during a write.

The core assumptions here are:

1. Latent, silent corruption of committed data needs to be detected at application layer with a checksum per record checked on every read.
2. Sector writes are atomic.
3. Sector writes have powersafe overwrites.

The SQLite authors have a detailed explanation of their system assumptions which impact correctness of atomic database commits.

SQLite assumes that the detection and/or correction of bit errors caused by cosmic rays, thermal noise, quantum fluctuations, device driver bugs, or other mechanisms, is the responsibility of the underlying hardware and operating system. SQLite does not add any redundancy to the database file for the purpose of detecting corruption or I/O errors. SQLite assumes that the data it reads is exactly the same data that it previously wrote.

Is very different from the above paper authors whose main point of their paper is predicated on how to recover from silent corruptions of the file caused by hardware, firmware or filesystem errors on read.

Note that this is a pragmatic position rather than a naive one: the authors are certainly aware that file-systems have bugs, that faulty raid controllers exist and even that hardware anomalies like high-flying or poorly tracking disk heads can happen but choose not to protect against that at all. See their briefing for linux kernel developers for more details on the uncertainty they understand exists around these areas.

SQLite has traditionally assumed that a sector write is not atomic.

These statements are on a page with this disclaimer:

The information in this article applies only when SQLite is operating in "rollback mode", or in other words when SQLite is not using a write-ahead log.

WAL mode docs are less explicit on assumptions and how crash recovery is achieved but we can infer some things from the file format and code though.

The WAL header is 32 bytes in size...

Immediately following the wal-header are zero or more frames. Each frame consists of a 24-byte frame-header followed by a page-size bytes of page data.

So each dirty page is appended with a 24 byte header making it not sector aligned even though pages must be a multiple of sector size.

Commit frames are also appended in the same way (and fsync called if enabled as an option). If fsync is enabled though (and POWERSAFE_OVERWRITE disabled), SQLite will "pad" to the next sector boundary (or beyond) by repeating the last frame until it's passed that boundary. For some reason, they take great care to write up to the sector boundary, sync then write the rest. I assume this is just to avoid waiting to flush the redundant padding bytes past the end of the sector they care about. Padding prevents the next append from potentially overwriting the committed frame's sector.

But...

By default, SQLite assumes that an operating system call to write a range of bytes will not damage or alter any bytes outside of that range even if a power loss or OS crash occurs during that write. We call this the "powersafe overwrite" property. Prior to version 3.7.9 (2011-11-01), SQLite did not assume powersafe overwrite. But with the standard sector size increasing from 512 to 4096 bytes on most disk drives, it has become necessary to assume powersafe overwrite in order to maintain historical performance levels and so powersafe overwrite is assumed by default in recent versions of SQLite.

[assuming no power safe overwrite] In WAL mode, each transaction had to be padded out to the next 4096-byte boundary in the WAL file, rather than the next 512-byte boundary, resulting in thousands of extra bytes being written per transaction.

SQLite never assumes that database page writes are atomic, regardless of the PSOW setting.(1) And hence SQLite is always able to automatically recover from torn pages induced by a crash. Enabling PSOW does not decrease SQLite's ability to recover from a torn page.

So they basically changed to make SSDs performant and now assume by default that appending to a partial sector won't damage other data. The authors are explicit that "powersafe overwrite" is a separate property from atomicity and they still don't rely on sector atomicity. But they do now assume powersafe overwrites by default.

To summarize, SQLite authors assume:

1. Latent, silent corruptions of committed data should be caught by the file system or hardware and so should't need to be accounted for in application code.
2. Sector writes are not atomic, but...
3. Partial sector overwrites can't corrupt committed data in same sector (by default).

The authors of etcd's WAL similarly to the authors of the above paper indicate the need to distinguish between torn writes and silent corruptions.

They maintain a rolling checksum of all records which is used on recovery only which would imply they only care about torn writes since per-record checksums are not checked on subsequent reads from the file after recovery. But they have specific code to distinguish between torn writes and "other" corruption during recovery.

They are careful to pad every record with 0 to 7 bytes such that the length prefix for the next record is always 8-byte aligned and so can't span more than one segment.

But their method of detecting a torn-write (rather than latent corruption) relies on reading through every 512 byte aligned slice of the set of records whose checksum has failed to match and seeing if there are any entirely zero sectors.

This seems problematic in a purely logical way regardless of disk behavior: if a legitimate record contains more than 1kb of zero bytes and happens to ever be corrupted after writing, that record will be falsely detected as a torn-write because at least one sector will be entirely zero bytes. In practice this doesn't matter much because corruptions caused by anything other than torn writes are likely very rare but it does make me wonder why bother trying to tell the difference.

The implied assumptions in their design are:

1. Latent, silent corruption needs to be detected on recovery, but not on every read.
2. Sector writes are atomic.
3. Partial sector writes don't corrupt existing data.
4. Torn writes (caused by multi-segment appends) always leave sectors all-zero.

Symas' Lightning Memory-mapped Database or LMDB is another well-used and respected DB file format (along with Go-native port BoltDB used by Consul, etcd and others).

LMDB writes exclusively in whole 4kb pages. LMDB has a copy-on-write design which reuses free pages and commits transactions using the a double-buffering technique: writing the root alternately to the first and second pages of the file. Individual pages do not have checksums and may be larger than the physical sector size. Dirty pages are written out to new or un-used pages and then fsynced before the transaction commits so there is no reliance on atomic sector writes for data pages (a crash might leave pages of a transaction partially written but they are not linked into the tree root yet so are ignored on recovery).

The transaction commits only after the double-buffered meta page is written out. LMDB relies on the fact that the actual content of the meta page is small enough to fit in a single sector to avoid "torn writes" on the meta page. (See the authors comments on this blog). Although sector writes are assumed to be atomic, there is no reliance on partial sector writes due to the paged design.

The implied assumptions in this design are:

1. Latent, silent corruptions of committed data should be caught by the file system or hardware and so should't need to be accounted for in application code.
2. Sector writes are atomic.
3. No assumptions about Powersafe overwrite since all IO is in whole pages.

BoltDB is a Go port of LMDB so inherits almost all of the same design assumptions. One notable different is that the author added a checksum to metadata page even though it still fits in a single sector. The author noted in private correspondence that this was probably just a defensive measure rather than a fix for a specific identified flaw in LMDB's design.

Initially this was not used to revert to the alternate page on failure because it was still assumed that meta fit in a single sector and that those writes were atomic. But a report of Docker causing corruption on a crash seemed to indicate that the atomic sector writes assumption was not safe alone and so the checksum was used to detect non-atomic writes even on the less-than-a-sector meta page.

BoltDB is also an important base case for our WAL since it is used as the current log store in use for many years within Consul and other HashiCorp products.

The implied assumptions in this design are:

1. Latent, silent corruptions of committed data should be caught by the file system or hardware and so should't need to be accounted for in application code.
2. Sector writes are not atomic.
3. No assumptions about Powersafe overwrite since all IO is in whole pages.

RocksDB is another well-respected storage library based on Google's LevelDB. RocksDB's WAL Format uses blocks to allow skipping through files and over corrupt records (which seems dangerous to me in general but perhaps they assume only torn-write corruptions are possible?).

Records are packed into 32KiB blocks until they don't fit. Records that are larger use first/middle/last flags (which inspired this library) to consume multiple blocks.

RocksDB WAL uses pre-allocated files but also re-uses old files on a circular buffer pattern since they have tight control of how much WAL is needed. This means they might be overwriting old records in place.

Each record independently gets a header with a checksum to detect corruption or incomplete writes, but no attempt is made to avoid sector boundaries or partial block writes - the current block is just appended to for each write.

Implied assumptions:

1. No Latent Corruptions? This isn't totally clear from the code or docs, but the docs indicate that a record with a mismatching checksum can simply be skipped over which would seem to violate basic durability properties for a database if they were already committed. That would imply that checksums only (correctly) detect torn writes with latent corruption not accounted for.
2. Sector writes are atomic.
3. Partial sector writes don't corrupt existing data.

Russ Cox asked this on twitter and tweeted a link to an excellent Stack Overflow answer about this by one of the authors of the NVME spec.

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.

Despite this, most current best-of-breed database libraries (notably except SQLite and potentially BoltDB), many linux file systems, and all academic papers on disk failure modes I've found so far do assume that sector writes are atomic.

I assume that the authors of these file systems, databases and papers are not unaware of the complexities described in the above link or the possibility of non-atomic sector writes, but rather have chosen to put those outside of the reasonable recoverable behavior of their systems. The actual chances of encountering a non-atomic sector write in a typical, modern system appear to be small enough that these authors consider that a reasonable assumption even when it's not a guarantee that can be 100% relied upon. (Although the Docker bug linked above for BoltDB seems to indicate a real-world case of this happening in a modern environment.)

A more subtle property that is a weaker assumption that full sector atomicity is termed by the SQLite authors as "Powersafe Overwrites" abbreviated PSOW.

By default, SQLite assumes that an operating system call to write a range of bytes will not damage or alter any bytes outside of that range even if a power loss or OS crash occurs during that write. We call this the "powersafe overwrite" property. Prior to version 3.7.9 (2011-11-01), SQLite did not assume powersafe overwrite. But with the standard sector size increasing from 512 to 4096 bytes on most disk drives, it has become necessary to assume powersafe overwrite in order to maintain historical performance levels and so powersafe overwrite is assumed by default in recent versions of SQLite.

Those who assume atomic sector writes also assume this property but the reverse need not be true. SQLite's authors in the page above assume nothing about the atomicity of the actual data written to any sector still even when POWERSAFE_OVERWRITE is enabled (which is now the default). They simply assume that no other data is harmed while performing a write that overlaps other sectors, even if power fails.

It's our view that while there certainly can be cases where this assumption doesn't hold, it's already weaker than the atomic sector write assumption that most reliable storage software assumes today and so is safe to assume on for this case.

Even when you explicitly fsync a file after writing to it, some devices or even whole operating systems (e.g. macOS) don't actually flush to disk to improve performance.

In our case, we assume that Go's os.File.Sync() method is makes the best effort it can on all modern OSes. It does now at least behave correctly on macOS (since Go 1.12). But we can't do anything about a lying hardware device.

• Auto-tuning segment size. This format allows for segments to be different sizes. We could start with a smaller segment size of say a single 1MiB block and then measure how long it takes to fill each segment. If segments fill quicker than some target rate we could double the allocated size of the next segment. This could mean a burst of writes makes the segments grow and then the writes slow down but the log would take a long time to free disk space because the segments take so long to fill. Arguably not a terrible problem, but we could also have it auto tune segment size down when write rate drops too. The only major benefit here would be to allow trivial usages like tests not need a whole 64MiB of disk space to just record a handful of log entries. But those could also just manually configure a smaller segment size.

In no particular order.

Files and Crash Recovery

• Files are hard
• Files are fraught with peril
• Ensuring data reaches disk
• Write Atomicity and NVME Device Design
• Durability: NVME Disks
• Intel SSD Durability
• Are Disk Sector Writes Atomic?
• Protocol Aware Recovery for Consensus-based Storage
• Atomic Commit in SQLite
• "Powersafe Overwrites" in SQLite
• An Analysis of Data Corruption in the Storage Stack

DB Design and Storage File layout

• BoltDB Implementation
• LMDB Design: slides, talk
• SQLite file layout

WAL implementations

• SQLite WAL Mode
• RocksDB WAL Format]
• etcd implementation