On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 11:44 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> We have a full 32 bit number space, so multiples of power of 2 are
> also
> possible if that makes sense.
Hmm that would make a maximum of 4GiB RAID chunks...
perhaps we should reserve some of the higher bits for a multiplier, in
case 4GiB wo
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 03:26:25AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 09:37 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > And since you are making the stripe size configurable, then user is
> > responsible for any too large or too small stripe size setting.
> That pops up the questions,
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:17:22 +0100
> David Sterba wrote:
>
> > Let me note that a good reputation is also built from patch reviews
> > (hint hint).
>
> Unfortunately, not too many patches coming in for BTRFS presently.
> Mailing
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 08:46:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Let me note that a good reputation is also built from patch reviews
> > (hint hint).
>
> I must admit I'm a bad reviewer.
> As when I review something, I always has an eager to rewrite part or all
> the patch to follow my idea, even i
On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 09:37 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> And since you are making the stripe size configurable, then user is
> responsible for any too large or too small stripe size setting.
That pops up the questions, which raid chunk sizes the kernel,
respectively the userland tools should allow fo
On 01/02/2016 07:52 PM, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:06:44 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
In theory this is possible with current on-disk data structures. The
stripe length is property of btrfs_chunk and changing it should be
possible the same way we do other raid transformation
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:06:44 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> In theory this is possible with current on-disk data structures. The
> stripe length is property of btrfs_chunk and changing it should be
> possible the same way we do other raid transformations. The
> implementation might be tricky at some
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:17:22 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> Let me note that a good reputation is also built from patch reviews
> (hint hint).
Unfortunately, not too many patches coming in for BTRFS presently.
Mailing list activity is down to 25-35 mails per day. Mostly feature
and bug requests.
I
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:58:05 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:15:23AM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> > - Implement a way to do an in-place Stripe Length change.
>
> How are you going to implement that? I've suggested the balance filter
> style of conversion, which is not
David Sterba wrote on 2015/12/30 17:17 +0100:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:10:44PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Now I am on the same side of David.
Which means a runtime interface to change them. (along with mkfs option)
If provide some configurable features, then it should be able to be
tuned at bo
On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 21:02 +, Duncan wrote:
> For something like that, it'd pretty much /have/ to be done as COW,
> at
> least at the chunk level, tho the address from the outside may stay
> the
> same. That's what balance already does, after all.
Ah... of course,... it would be basically C
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:00:11 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Tue, 2015-12-29 at 19:06 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
>> > Both open of course many questions (how to deal with crashes,
>> > etc.)...
>> > maybe having a look at how mdadm handles similar problems could be
>> > wo
On Tue, 2015-12-29 at 19:06 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > Both open of course many questions (how to deal with crashes,
> > etc.)...
> > maybe having a look at how mdadm handles similar problems could be
> > worth.
>
> The crash consistency should remain, other than that we'd have to
> enhance th
On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 22:10 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Or, just don't touch it until there is really enough user demand.
I definitely think that there is demand... as I've written previously,
when I did some benchmarking tests (though on MD and HW raid) then
depending on the RAID chunk size, one got
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:10:44PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Now I am on the same side of David.
> Which means a runtime interface to change them. (along with mkfs option)
>
> If provide some configurable features, then it should be able to be
> tuned at both right time and mkfs time.
> Or, just
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:15:23AM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> Only one problem. I do not run BTRFS on my systems nor do I have a
> RAID setup, due to possessing a limited number of free drives. So, while
> I may be able to code for it, I will not be able to test it. I will need
> the communit
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:10:44 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Understood now.
Good.
> I totally understand that implement ... to polish your
> skill.
That has got to be the most hilarious way I believe I have seen someone
delegate a task. But it was effective.
Only one problem. I do not run BTRFS on m
On 12/30/2015 05:54 PM, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:16 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
Not really sure about the difference between 2 and 3.
I should have made it clear before, I was asking the exact use case in
mind when listing the choices. Option 2 would be for SysAdmins run
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:16 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Not really sure about the difference between 2 and 3.
I should have made it clear before, I was asking the exact use case in
mind when listing the choices. Option 2 would be for SysAdmins running
production software and configuring it as they
On 12/30/2015 02:39 PM, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:06:11 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
So you want to make the stripe size configurable?...
As I see it there are 3 ways to do it:
-Make it a compile time option that only configures it for a single
system with any devices tha
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:06:11 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> So you want to make the stripe size configurable?...
As I see it there are 3 ways to do it:
-Make it a compile time option that only configures it for a single
system with any devices that are added to the RAID.
-Make it a runtime option t
On Tue, 2015-12-29 at 16:44 +, Duncan wrote:
> As I normally put it, btrfs is "definitely stabilizING, but not yet
> entirely stable and mature."
[snip snap]
And now... as a song please :D
I'd also take a medieval rhyme ;-)
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signat
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:06:11 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> I don't know about all implications from changing the define to
> sb->stripesize, also we want to define the allowed range etc. It would
> be better to add more description to the patch.
So, is the patch atleast somewhat usable and you jus
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 05:26:28AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 19:03 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> > That sounds like an absolutely ghastly idea.
> *G* and it probably is ;)
>
>
> > Lots of potential for
> > mistakes and potential data loss. I take up the of
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 06:15:12AM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:39:07 +0100
> David Sterba wrote:
>
> > The stripe size depends on how the filesystem was made, at the moment
> > the stripesize parameter is missing from mkfs. The kernel module
> > should support all size
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:32:59 +0100 as
excerpted:
>> From Documentation/filesystems/BTRFS.txt:
>> Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for any uses
>> other than benchmarking and review.
> Well I guess now it's time for Duncan's usual "stable or not
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 21:23 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> From Documentation/filesystems/BTRFS.txt:
> Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for
> any uses other than benchmarking and review.
Well I guess now it's time for Duncan's usual "stable or not" talk
(@Duncan, I think by n
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:39:07 +0100
David Sterba wrote:
> The stripe size depends on how the filesystem was made, at the moment
> the stripesize parameter is missing from mkfs. The kernel module
> should support all sizes at runtime, so it's not a compile-time
> option.
No good? I will try and re
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 07:24:11AM -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> An option to select the RAID Stripe size is made
> available in the BTRFS Filesystem, via an option
> in the BTRFS Config setup, with minimal change
> to the existing code base.
The stripe size depends on how the filesystem was ma
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:03:11 +0100
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 20:31 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> > What is your experience like about running a production system on
> > what
> > is essentially a beta product? Crashes?
> What do you mean? btrfs? I'm not yet running
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 20:31 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> What is your experience like about running a production system on
> what
> is essentially a beta product? Crashes?
What do you mean? btrfs? I'm not yet running it in production (there
was a subthread recently, where I've explained a bit m
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 05:26:28 +0100
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I spoke largely from the user/admin side,... running a quite big
> storage Tier-2, we did many IO benchmarks over time (with different
> hardware RAID controllers) and also as our IO patterns changed over
> time...
> The result
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 19:03 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> That sounds like an absolutely ghastly idea.
*G* and it probably is ;)
> Lots of potential for
> mistakes and potential data loss. I take up the offer to implement
> such a feature.
> Only question is should it be in-place replacement
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:42:08 +0100
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 16:43 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> May get even much more complicated, if reshaping (i.e. conversion from
> one chunk size to another) should get implemented as well...
That sounds like an absolutely g
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 16:43 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> Apologies, it appears I did misunderstand. That should be possible,
> though slightly complicated. I will try to get that done.
May get even much more complicated, if reshaping (i.e. conversion from
one chunk size to another) should get i
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:21:09 +0100
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 15:38 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> > > Shouldn't that rather eventually become configurable per
> > > filesystem?
> > Don't know. It was in the BTRFS File todo list, hence the
> > BTRFS-specific patch.
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 15:38 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> > Shouldn't that rather eventually become configurable per
> > filesystem?
> Don't know. It was in the BTRFS File todo list, hence the
> BTRFS-specific patch.
Uhm you misunderstood me =)
I meant, configurable per instance of a btrfs file
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:19:55 +0100
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 07:24 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> > An option to select the RAID Stripe size is made
> > available in the BTRFS Filesystem, via an option
> > in the BTRFS Config setup
> Shouldn't that rather eventuall
On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 07:24 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote:
> An option to select the RAID Stripe size is made
> available in the BTRFS Filesystem, via an option
> in the BTRFS Config setup
Shouldn't that rather eventually become configurable per filesystem?
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S
39 matches
Mail list logo
