Re: Implied parity and erasure code

[Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1430 bytes --]



On 10/05/2014 14:40, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote:
> Hi Loic, 
> I think it is good to have the flexibility to include the global parity stripes in local subgroups or as in the picture to make a subgroup out of the global parities and compute a local paritiy for them. Although with the chosen parameters these local subgroups are not symmetric (5,5 and 4 chunks per group)  but e.g. for 8+4 one would have 3 symmetric local groups as drawn and if you project is on a three data center setup you would like to have for each center a local parity. 
> 
> But wasn't this already possible with your prototype implementation?

It was possible to distribute in this way, indeed. But there is no support for the implied parity idea. I wonder how that would fit.

Cheers

> 
> Cheers Andreas.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Loic Dachary [loic@dachary.org]
> Sent: 09 May 2014 17:35
> To: Andreas Joachim Peters
> Cc: Ceph Development
> Subject: Implied parity and erasure code
> 
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> The "implied parity bloc" mentionned page 4 of http://anrg.usc.edu/~maheswaran/Xorbas.pdf is something we've not discussed in the context of the implementation of the pyramid erasure code plugin. I'm not sure if it would be useful to have. Do you have an opinion ?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 263 bytes --]