All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <4A61C3D9.6020200@zytor.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 2a120c3..a62d5ba 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -1,47 +1,38 @@
 David Woodhouse wrote:
->=20
+> 
 > I'm only interested in what we can use directly within btrfs -- and
 > ideally I do want something which gives me an _arbitrary_ number of
-> redundant blocks, rather than limiting me to 2. But the legacy code i=
-s
-> good enough for now=C2=B9.
->=20
+> redundant blocks, rather than limiting me to 2. But the legacy code is
+> good enough for now¹.
+> 
 > When I get round to wanting more, I was thinking of lifting something
-> like http://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git?a=3Dblob;f=3Dfec.c to sta=
-rt
-> with, and maybe hoping that someone cleverer will come up with someth=
-ing
+> like http://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git?a=blob;f=fec.c to start
+> with, and maybe hoping that someone cleverer will come up with something
 > better.
->=20
+> 
 > The less I have to deal with Galois Fields, the happier I'll be.
->=20
+> 
 
-Well, if you want something with more than 2-block redundancy you need=20
-something other than the existing RAID-6 code which, as you know, is a=20
-special case of general Reed-Solomon coding that I happen to have spent=
-=20
-a lot of time optimizing.  The FEC code is not optimized at all if I ca=
-n=20
-tell, and certainly doesn't use SSE in any way -- never mind the GF=20
-accelerators that are starting to appear.  That doesn't mean it=20
-*couldn't*, just that noone has done the work to either implement it or=
-=20
+Well, if you want something with more than 2-block redundancy you need 
+something other than the existing RAID-6 code which, as you know, is a 
+special case of general Reed-Solomon coding that I happen to have spent 
+a lot of time optimizing.  The FEC code is not optimized at all if I can 
+tell, and certainly doesn't use SSE in any way -- never mind the GF 
+accelerators that are starting to appear.  That doesn't mean it 
+*couldn't*, just that noone has done the work to either implement it or 
 prove it can't be done.
 
-Either way, perhaps the Plank paper that Rik pointed to could be useful=
-=20
-as a starting point; it's probably worth taking their performance=20
-numbers with a *major* grain of salt: their implementation of RAID-6=20
+Either way, perhaps the Plank paper that Rik pointed to could be useful 
+as a starting point; it's probably worth taking their performance 
+numbers with a *major* grain of salt: their implementation of RAID-6 
 "RS-Opt" which is supposed to be equivalent to my code performs at
-400 MB/s, which is less than Pentium III-era performance of the real=20
-world code (they compare not to real code but to their own=20
-implementation in Java, called "Jerasure".)  Implementability using rea=
-l=20
+400 MB/s, which is less than Pentium III-era performance of the real 
+world code (they compare not to real code but to their own 
+implementation in Java, called "Jerasure".)  Implementability using real 
 array instruction sets is key to decent performance.
 
 	-hpa
 --
-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
-in
+To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
 the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 5da0312..acc3c69 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -21,51 +21,42 @@
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "David Woodhouse wrote:\n"
- ">=20\n"
+ "> \n"
  "> I'm only interested in what we can use directly within btrfs -- and\n"
  "> ideally I do want something which gives me an _arbitrary_ number of\n"
- "> redundant blocks, rather than limiting me to 2. But the legacy code i=\n"
- "s\n"
- "> good enough for now=C2=B9.\n"
- ">=20\n"
+ "> redundant blocks, rather than limiting me to 2. But the legacy code is\n"
+ "> good enough for now\302\271.\n"
+ "> \n"
  "> When I get round to wanting more, I was thinking of lifting something\n"
- "> like http://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git?a=3Dblob;f=3Dfec.c to sta=\n"
- "rt\n"
- "> with, and maybe hoping that someone cleverer will come up with someth=\n"
- "ing\n"
+ "> like http://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git?a=blob;f=fec.c to start\n"
+ "> with, and maybe hoping that someone cleverer will come up with something\n"
  "> better.\n"
- ">=20\n"
+ "> \n"
  "> The less I have to deal with Galois Fields, the happier I'll be.\n"
- ">=20\n"
+ "> \n"
  "\n"
- "Well, if you want something with more than 2-block redundancy you need=20\n"
- "something other than the existing RAID-6 code which, as you know, is a=20\n"
- "special case of general Reed-Solomon coding that I happen to have spent=\n"
- "=20\n"
- "a lot of time optimizing.  The FEC code is not optimized at all if I ca=\n"
- "n=20\n"
- "tell, and certainly doesn't use SSE in any way -- never mind the GF=20\n"
- "accelerators that are starting to appear.  That doesn't mean it=20\n"
- "*couldn't*, just that noone has done the work to either implement it or=\n"
- "=20\n"
+ "Well, if you want something with more than 2-block redundancy you need \n"
+ "something other than the existing RAID-6 code which, as you know, is a \n"
+ "special case of general Reed-Solomon coding that I happen to have spent \n"
+ "a lot of time optimizing.  The FEC code is not optimized at all if I can \n"
+ "tell, and certainly doesn't use SSE in any way -- never mind the GF \n"
+ "accelerators that are starting to appear.  That doesn't mean it \n"
+ "*couldn't*, just that noone has done the work to either implement it or \n"
  "prove it can't be done.\n"
  "\n"
- "Either way, perhaps the Plank paper that Rik pointed to could be useful=\n"
- "=20\n"
- "as a starting point; it's probably worth taking their performance=20\n"
- "numbers with a *major* grain of salt: their implementation of RAID-6=20\n"
+ "Either way, perhaps the Plank paper that Rik pointed to could be useful \n"
+ "as a starting point; it's probably worth taking their performance \n"
+ "numbers with a *major* grain of salt: their implementation of RAID-6 \n"
  "\"RS-Opt\" which is supposed to be equivalent to my code performs at\n"
- "400 MB/s, which is less than Pentium III-era performance of the real=20\n"
- "world code (they compare not to real code but to their own=20\n"
- "implementation in Java, called \"Jerasure\".)  Implementability using rea=\n"
- "l=20\n"
+ "400 MB/s, which is less than Pentium III-era performance of the real \n"
+ "world code (they compare not to real code but to their own \n"
+ "implementation in Java, called \"Jerasure\".)  Implementability using real \n"
  "array instruction sets is key to decent performance.\n"
  "\n"
  "\t-hpa\n"
  "--\n"
- "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-btrfs\" =\n"
- "in\n"
+ "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-btrfs\" in\n"
  "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n"
  More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 
-f51f93d4e64b379b670854d60fd078d8c15a1705c7acb3d92c1dcc8bc1840145
+508708050515a044863bc880726590c7d7eafd7d8e56d541de9167c3c5b0e393

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.