On 2018-07-20 14:41, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:38:14PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
20.07.2018 20:16, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
[snip]
Limiting the number of disk per raid, in BTRFS would be quite simple to implement in the
"chunk allocator"
You mean that currently
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:38:14PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 20.07.2018 20:16, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
[snip]
> > Limiting the number of disk per raid, in BTRFS would be quite simple to
> > implement in the "chunk allocator"
> >
>
> You mean that currently RAID5 stripe size is equal
20.07.2018 20:16, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
> On 07/20/2018 07:17 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 18.07.2018 22:42, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>>> On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
> On 07/17/2018
On 2018-07-20 13:13, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 07/19/2018 09:10 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-07-19 13:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
So until now you are repeating what I told: the only useful raid profile are
- striping
- mirroring
- striping+paring (even limiting the
On 07/20/2018 07:17 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 18.07.2018 22:42, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>> On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
>>> excerpted:
>>>
On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Goffredo Baroncelli
On 07/19/2018 09:10 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-07-19 13:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
>>
>> So until now you are repeating what I told: the only useful raid profile are
>> - striping
>> - mirroring
>> - striping+paring (even limiting the number of disk involved)
>> -
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:47:23AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > So this special level will be used for RAID56 for now?
> > Or it will also be possible for metadata usage just like current RAID1?
> >
> > If the latter, the metadata scrub problem will need to be considered more.
> >
> >
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:27:17PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2018年07月14日 02:46, David Sterba wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some goodies that go into the RAID56 problem, although not
> > implementing all the remaining features, it can be useful independently.
> >
> > This time my hackweek
18.07.2018 22:42, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
> On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
>> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
excerpted:
Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:39:48AM +, Duncan wrote:
Duncan posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:20:09 + as excerpted:
Perhaps it's a case of coder's view (no code doing it that way, it's just
a coincidental oddity conditional on equal sizes), vs. sysadmin's view
(code or
On 2018-07-19 13:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 07/19/2018 01:43 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-07-18 15:42, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM,
On 2018-07-19 03:27, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018年07月14日 02:46, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
I have some goodies that go into the RAID56 problem, although not
implementing all the remaining features, it can be useful independently.
This time my hackweek project
On 2018-07-18 15:42, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
excerpted:
On 07/15/2018
On 2018年07月14日 02:46, David Sterba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some goodies that go into the RAID56 problem, although not
> implementing all the remaining features, it can be useful independently.
>
> This time my hackweek project
>
>
On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
> excerpted:
>
>> On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
>>> excerpted:
>>>
On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:39:48AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Duncan posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:20:09 + as excerpted:
>
> >> As implemented in BTRFS, raid1 doesn't have striping.
> >
> > The argument is that because there's only two copies, on multi-device
> > btrfs raid1 with 4+ devices of
On 2018-07-18 03:20, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
excerpted:
On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
Striping and
On 2018-07-18 04:39, Duncan wrote:
Duncan posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:20:09 + as excerpted:
As implemented in BTRFS, raid1 doesn't have striping.
The argument is that because there's only two copies, on multi-device
btrfs raid1 with 4+ devices of equal size so chunk allocations tend to
Duncan posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:20:09 + as excerpted:
>> As implemented in BTRFS, raid1 doesn't have striping.
>
> The argument is that because there's only two copies, on multi-device
> btrfs raid1 with 4+ devices of equal size so chunk allocations tend to
> alternate device pairs,
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
> On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
>>
>>> Striping and mirroring/pairing are
On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
> excerpted:
>
>> On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
>
>> Striping and mirroring/pairing are orthogonal properties; mirror and
>> parity are mutually exclusive.
>
> I can't agree. I
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
excerpted:
> On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
> Striping and mirroring/pairing are orthogonal properties; mirror and
> parity are mutually exclusive.
I can't agree. I don't know whether you meant that in the global sense,
waxhead wrote:
David Sterba wrote:
An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked
something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal.
Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the
non-standard raid varieties of the btrfs flavor:
On 2018-07-16 14:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
David Sterba wrote:
An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked
something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal.
Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme
On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
> David Sterba wrote:
>> An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked
>> something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal.
>> Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the
>> non-standard raid
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 08:46:28PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
[snip]
> An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked
> something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal.
> Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the
> non-standard raid
David Sterba wrote:
An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked
something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal.
Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the
non-standard raid varieties of the btrfs flavor:
Hi,
I have some goodies that go into the RAID56 problem, although not
implementing all the remaining features, it can be useful independently.
This time my hackweek project
https://hackweek.suse.com/17/projects/do-something-about-btrfs-and-raid56
aimed to implement the fix for the write hole
28 matches
Mail list logo
