I'd a appreciate any help/pointers in implementing the proposal below
including the right path to get this into the kernel itself.
--
I'm outlining below a proposal for a RAID device mapper virtual block
device for the kernel which adds "split raid" functionality on
On November 21, 2014 5:15:43 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
>I'd a appreciate any help/pointers in implementing the proposal below
>including the right path to get this into the kernel itself.
>--
>I'm outlining below a proposal for a RAID device mapper virtual
N pass through but with their own filesystems. Concatenation is via
some kind of union fs solution not at the block level. Data is not
supposed to be striped (this is critical so as to prevent all drives
to be required to be accessed for consecutive data)
Idea is that each drive can work independe
Top posting is strongly discouraged on all kernel related mailing lists
including this one. I've moved your reply to the bottom and then replied after
that. In future I will ignore replies that are top posted.
>On 21 November 2014 17:11, Greg Freemyer
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> On November 21, 2014 5:
On 22 November 2014 at 18:47, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> Top posting is strongly discouraged on all kernel related mailing lists
> including this one. I've moved your reply to the bottom and then replied
> after that. In future I will ignore replies that are top posted.
>
>
>>On 21 November 2014 1
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
> By not using stripes, we restrict writes to happen to just 1 drive and
> the XOR output to the parity drive which then explains the delayed and
> batched checksum (resulting in fewer writes to the parity drive). The
> intention is that if
On 22 November 2014 at 19:33, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Anshuman Aggarwal
> wrote:
>> By not using stripes, we restrict writes to happen to just 1 drive and
>> the XOR output to the parity drive which then explains the delayed and
>> batched checksum (resulting in fe
On November 22, 2014 9:43:23 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
>On 22 November 2014 at 19:33, Greg Freemyer
>wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Anshuman Aggarwal
>> wrote:
>>> By not using stripes, we restrict writes to happen to just 1 drive
>and
>>> the XOR output to the parity drive
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Greg Freemyer
wrote:
>
>
> On November 22, 2014 9:43:23 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal <
> anshuman.aggar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 22 November 2014 at 19:33, Greg Freemyer
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Anshuman Aggarwal
> >> wrote:
> >>> By not us
Sandeep,
This isn't exactly RAID4 (only thing in common is a single parity
disk but the data is not striped at all). I did bring it up on the
linux-raid mailing list and have had a short conversation with Neil.
He wasn't too excited about device mapper but didn't indicate why or
why not.
I would
On November 24, 2014 1:48:48 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
>Sandeep,
> This isn't exactly RAID4 (only thing in common is a single parity
>disk but the data is not striped at all). I did bring it up on the
>linux-raid mailing list and have had a short conversation with Neil.
>He wasn't too ex
On 24 November 2014 at 18:49, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>
>
> On November 24, 2014 1:48:48 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
> wrote:
>>Sandeep,
>> This isn't exactly RAID4 (only thing in common is a single parity
>>disk but the data is not striped at all). I did bring it up on the
>>linux-raid mailing list
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:58:08 +0530, Anshuman Aggarwal said:
> prevents it from directly recognized by file system code . I was
> wondering if Split RAID block devices can be made to be unaware to the
> RAID scheme on top and be fully mountable and usable without the raid
> drivers (of course inval
On November 24, 2014 12:28:08 PM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
>On 24 November 2014 at 18:49, Greg Freemyer
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> On November 24, 2014 1:48:48 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
> wrote:
>>>Sandeep,
>>> This isn't exactly RAID4 (only thing in common is a single parity
>>>disk but the data is
On 25 November 2014 at 10:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>
>
> On November 24, 2014 12:28:08 PM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
> wrote:
>>On 24 November 2014 at 18:49, Greg Freemyer
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On November 24, 2014 1:48:48 AM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
>> wrote:
Sandeep,
This isn't exactly RAID
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Anshuman Aggarwal
wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 10:26, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On November 24, 2014 12:28:08 PM EST, Anshuman Aggarwal
>> wrote:
>>>On 24 November 2014 at 18:49, Greg Freemyer
>>>wrote:
> Also if I don't store the metadata on
16 matches
Mail list logo
