Hi Chris,
On 01/06, Chris Mason wrote:
> Neat. The faila/failb were always my least favorite part of the btrfs
> code ;) Did you test just raid5/6 or also the higher parity counts?
At this stage no real testing was made with btrfs.
The intention of this btrfs patch is mainly to get feedback on
Hi Chris,
On 01/06, Chris Mason wrote:
Neat. The faila/failb were always my least favorite part of the btrfs
code ;) Did you test just raid5/6 or also the higher parity counts?
At this stage no real testing was made with btrfs.
The intention of this btrfs patch is mainly to get feedback on
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 10:31 +0100, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:
> This patch changes btrfs/raid56.c to use the new raid interface and
> extends its support to an arbitrary number of parities.
>
> More in details, the two faila/failb failure indexes are now replaced
> with a fail[] vector that keeps
This patch changes btrfs/raid56.c to use the new raid interface and
extends its support to an arbitrary number of parities.
More in details, the two faila/failb failure indexes are now replaced
with a fail[] vector that keeps track of up to six failures, and now
the new raid_par() and raid_rec()
This patch changes btrfs/raid56.c to use the new raid interface and
extends its support to an arbitrary number of parities.
More in details, the two faila/failb failure indexes are now replaced
with a fail[] vector that keeps track of up to six failures, and now
the new raid_par() and raid_rec()
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 10:31 +0100, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:
This patch changes btrfs/raid56.c to use the new raid interface and
extends its support to an arbitrary number of parities.
More in details, the two faila/failb failure indexes are now replaced
with a fail[] vector that keeps track
6 matches
Mail list logo