From: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
To: "Zhou, Yuan" <yuan.zhou@intel.com>,
"Andreas.Joachim.Peters@cern.ch" <Andreas.Joachim.Peters@cern.ch>
Cc: "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on Ceph LRC design
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:04:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54694980.2010302@dachary.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <06681238D8946F44A60AA400760A1CBF01E290AB@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1521 bytes --]
Hi,
I believe Andreas has a more elaborate answer on this topic. The current implementation is not as good as what is described in the paper you mention, this is correct. My incentive for chosing this path is that I was able to understand it, mainly. It is not much more than stacking layers of erasure coded chunks on top of each other ;-)
Now that we have this plugin, it would be nice to have another implementation that uses less space and possible even less network when reconstructing. During the OpenStack summit we discussed this with Kevin Greenan and there are promising directions. It would help a lot to have a sample code to study so that it can be adapted to what we have currently in Ceph. Do you know of such an implementation of LRC or other similar code designed to reduce the network bandwidth during reconstruction ?
Cheers
On 17/11/2014 01:52, Zhou, Yuan wrote:
> Hi Loic/Anderas,
>
>
>
> I was trying to understand the LRC design in Ceph EC. Per my understanding, it seems Ceph was using a slightly different design with the Microsoft LRC: the local parities were calculated with the global parities included. Is there any special consideration on this change?
>
> I was asking because in a typical MS LRC design the global and local parities could be calculated at the same time actually(I mean inside the Erasure Code library). But with this new design, we lost this potential optimization.
>
>
>
> Thanks, -Yuan
>
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 263 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-17 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <06681238D8946F44A60AA400760A1CBF01E28FBD@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2014-11-17 1:00 ` Question on Ceph LRC design Zhou, Yuan
[not found] ` <06681238D8946F44A60AA400760A1CBF01E290AB@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2014-11-17 1:04 ` Loic Dachary [this message]
2014-11-17 10:07 ` Andreas Joachim Peters
2014-11-17 10:30 ` Loic Dachary
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54694980.2010302@dachary.org \
--to=loic@dachary.org \
--cc=Andreas.Joachim.Peters@cern.ch \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuan.zhou@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.