Bit late - but that could be explored in future. The main downside I see
with automatic redundancy/optimisation is the complexity it
introduces. Likely this would be best served with user-space tools.
On 11/03/13 02:21, Roger Binns wrote:
On 10/03/13 15:04, Hugo Mills wrote:
Given that this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26/03/13 21:27, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 11/03/13 02:21, Roger Binns wrote:
Why does all data have to be rewritten? Why does every piece of data
have to have exactly the same storage parameters in terms of
non-redundancy/performance/striping
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:55:10PM +, sam tygier wrote:
On 09/03/13 20:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:49:53PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
Using an asterisk '*' in something will be used as a command line argument
risks having the shell expand it. Sticking to pure alphanumeric names would
be better.
Yeah, David's just pointed this out on IRC. After a bit of
Hi Hugo,
Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Hugo Mills:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
and p is the number of
Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Harald Glatt:
Very good points,
I was also gonna write something by the lines of 'all that matters is
achieving the minimum amount of redundancy, as requested by the user,
at the maximum possible performance'.
After reading your post now, Roger,
Hi Martin,
On 03/10/2013 12:23 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi Hugo,
Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Hugo Mills:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of
Hi Hugo,
On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
and p is the number of parity
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi Hugo,
Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Hugo Mills:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
Oh, sorry. It's reduced redundancy, aka DUP -- i.e. you get that
number of copies, but not guarantee that the copies all live on
different devices. I'm not devoted to showing it this way. Other
suggestions for making
On 03/10/2013 10:45 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
I've noticed through my own tests that on a single device I can
corrupt around 5% of the data completely before btrfs fails. Up to
that point both filesystem as well as data integrity stays at 100%.
However the default layout for one disk seems to
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 09:41:50PM -0800, Roger Binns wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision problem.
I created a btrfs volume on a 4GB drive using the entire drive
(VirtualBox VM). Of this drive btrfs immediately used 400 MB. I then
filled it up with random data, left around 300 MB free and made a
md5sum of said data. Then I umounted the volume and wrote random data
into it the drive with dd at
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 04:43:33PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi Hugo,
On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of
El Domingo, 10 de marzo de 2013 12:23:56 Martin Steigerwald escribió:
Any other idea to make it less cryptic?
I would vote for optionally allowing to expand the codes into
something more verbose and self-documented, ie:
1CmS1P - 1Copy-manyStripes-1Parity
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 10/03/13 15:43, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
- DUP - dD (to allow more that 2 copy per
disk)
- RAID1 - nC or *C
- RAID0 - mS or *S
- RAID10 - nCmS or *CmS or nC*s
-
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:40:27PM +, sam tygier wrote:
On 10/03/13 15:43, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
- DUP - dD (to allow more that 2 copy per
disk)
- RAID1 - nC or *C
- RAID0
On 09/03/13 20:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
and p is the number of parity devices in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/13 15:04, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 09:41:50PM -0800, Roger Binns wrote:
The only constraints that matter are surviving N device failures, and
data not lost if at least N devices are still present. Under the
hood the best
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
and p is the number of parity devices in a stripe.
The current kernel
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0100, Harald Glatt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is the
number of copies, m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 12:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is
the number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per
copy,
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 02:25:25PM -0800, Roger Binns wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 12:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
RAID-n terminology to change it to an nCmSpP format, where n is
the number
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision problem.
You've got:
- Device redundancy - Storage overhead - Performance
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Roger Binns rog...@rogerbinns.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision
Very good points,
I was also gonna write something by the lines of 'all that matters is
achieving the minimum amount of redundancy, as requested by the user,
at the maximum possible performance'.
After reading your post now, Roger, I'm much more clear on what I
actually wanted to say,
27 matches
Mail list logo
