From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: erasure coding (sorry) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:10:55 +0200 Message-ID: <5174F08F.2070001@dachary.org> References: <20130418162842.0c61d1e2@dieter-t420s> <517060B2.80706@inktank.com> <51706120.2060702@inktank.com> <20130418173113.74a53769@dieter-t420s> <8232544E-56F5-40BF-899D-2A2D4735FD54@asgaard.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigA1DEE4B606D6057C370EA3FA" Return-path: Received: from smtp.dmail.dachary.org ([86.65.39.20]:48082 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753941Ab3DVIK6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:10:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8232544E-56F5-40BF-899D-2A2D4735FD54@asgaard.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigA1DEE4B606D6057C370EA3FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 sha= rd would be written to a seperate PG, and each PG would we stored on exac= tly 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: >=20 >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:09:52 -0500 >> Mark Nelson wrote: >=20 >>> >> >> @Bryan: I did come across cleversafe. all the articles around it seem= ed promising, >> but unfortunately it seems everything related to the cleversafe open s= ource 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 on= e 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 reu= se existing ceph >> code and/or allow some integration with replication based objects, wit= hout 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 do= esn't contain any information yet :) >=20 > Greetings - it does now - see what you all think=E2=80=A6 >=20 > Christopher >=20 >> >> Dieter >=20 >=20 > -- > =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF > 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 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --------------enigA1DEE4B606D6057C370EA3FA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlF08I8ACgkQ8dLMyEl6F21d+wCfVNDilO8V1DIptLCWFTZHjrcx fn4AnRNUn1qjTYjKnLlNQ4Vu83vRDHUH =elts -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigA1DEE4B606D6057C370EA3FA--