Re: erasure coding (sorry)

[Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1832 bytes --]

Hi Christopher,

You wrote "A modified client/library could be used to store objects that should be sharded, vs "standard" ceph treatment.  In this model, each shard would be written to a seperate PG, and each PG would we stored on exactly one OSD.  " but there is no way for a client to enforce the fact that two objects are stored in separate PG.

Am I missing something ?

On 04/22/2013 09:23 AM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
> Supposedly, on 2013-Apr-18, at 14.31 PDT(-0700), someone claiming to be Plaetinck, Dieter scribed:
> 
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:09:52 -0500
>> Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@inktank.com> wrote:
> 
>>>
>>
>> @Bryan: I did come across cleversafe.  all the articles around it seemed promising,
>> but unfortunately it seems everything related to the cleversafe open source project
>> somehow vanished from the internet.  (e.g. http://www.cleversafe.org/) quite weird...
>>
>> @Sage: interesting. I thought it would be more relatively simple if one assumes
>> the restriction of immutable files.  I'm not familiar with those ceph specifics you're mentioning.
>> When building an erasure codes-based system, maybe there's ways to reuse existing ceph
>> code and/or allow some integration with replication based objects, without aiming for full integration or
>> full support of the rados api, based on some tradeoffs.
>>
>> @Josh, that sounds like an interesting approach.  Too bad that page doesn't contain any information yet :)
> 
> Greetings - it does now - see what you all think…
> 
> 	Christopher
> 
>>
>> Dieter
> 
> 
> --
> 李柯睿
> Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
> Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf
> Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]