Hi Shyam,
On 17/06/16 15:59, Shyam wrote:
On 06/17/2016 04:59 AM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
Firstly, thanks for the overall post, was informative and helps clarify
some aspects of EC.
AFAIK the real problem of EC is the communications
layer. It adds a lot of latency and having to communicate si
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've seen in many places the belief that disperse, or erasure coding in
> general, is slow because of the complex or costly math involved. It's true
> that there's an overhead compared to a simple copy like replica does, but
>
On 06/17/2016 04:59 AM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
Firstly, thanks for the overall post, was informative and helps clarify
some aspects of EC.
AFAIK the real problem of EC is the communications
layer. It adds a lot of latency and having to communicate simultaneously
and coordinate 6 or more bric
> The math used by disperse, if tested alone outside gluster, is much
> faster than it seems. AFAIK the real problem of EC is the communications
> layer. It adds a lot of latency and having to communicate simultaneously
> and coordinate 6 or more bricks has a big impact.
Thanks for posting this, X
Hi all,
I've seen in many places the belief that disperse, or erasure coding in
general, is slow because of the complex or costly math involved. It's
true that there's an overhead compared to a simple copy like replica
does, but this overhead is way more smaller than many people think.
The m
