Re: Mis-Design of Btrfs?

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:29:53 +0100 Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/27/2011 07:46 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:53:37 +0200 Nico Schottelius
> > <nico-lkml-20110623@schottelius.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> Good morning devs,
> >>
> >> I'm wondering whether the raid- and volume-management-builtin of btrfs is
> >> actually a sane idea or not.
> >> Currently we do have md/device-mapper support for raid
> >> already, btrfs lacks raid5 support and re-implements stuff that
> >> has already been done.
> >>
> >> I'm aware of the fact that it is very useful to know on which devices
> >> we are in a filesystem. But I'm wondering, whether it wouldn't be
> >> smarter to generalise the information exposure through the VFS layer
> >> instead of replicating functionality:
> >>
> >> Physical:   USB-HD   SSD   USB-Flash          | Exposes information to
> >> Raid:       Raid1, Raid5, Raid10, etc.        | higher levels
> >> Crypto:     Luks                              |
> >> LVM:        Groups/Volumes                    |
> >> FS:         xfs/jfs/reiser/ext3               v
> >>
> >> Thus a filesystem like ext3 could be aware that it is running
> >> on a USB HD, enable -o sync be default or have the filesystem
> >> to rewrite blocks when running on crypto or optimise for an SSD, ...
> > I would certainly agree that exposing information to higher levels is a good
> > idea.  To some extent we do.  But it isn't always as easy as it might sound.
> > Choosing exactly what information to expose is the challenge.  If you lack
> > sufficient foresight you might expose something which turns out to be
> > very specific to just one device, so all those upper levels which make use of
> > the information find they are really special-casing one specific device,
> > which isn't a good idea.
> >
> >
> > However it doesn't follow that RAID5 should not be implemented in BTRFS.
> > The levels that you have drawn are just one perspective.  While that has
> > value, it may not be universal.
> > I could easily argue that the LVM layer is a mistake and that filesystems
> > should provide that functionality directly.
> > I could almost argue the same for crypto.
> > RAID1 can make a lot of sense to be tightly integrated with the FS.
> > RAID5 ... I'm less convinced, but then I have a vested interest there so that
> > isn't an objective assessment.
> >
> > Part of "the way Linux works" is that s/he who writes the code gets to make
> > the design decisions.   The BTRFS developers might create something truly
> > awesome, or might end up having to support a RAID feature that they
> > subsequently think is a bad idea.  But it really is their decision to make.
> >
> > NeilBrown
> >
> 
> One more thing to add here is that I think that we still have a chance to 
> increase the sharing between btrfs and the MD stack if we can get those changes 
> made. No one likes to duplicate code, but we will need a richer interface 
> between the block and file system layer to help close that gap.
> 
> Ric
> 

I'm certainly open to suggestions and collaboration.  Do you have in mind any
particular way to make the interface richer??

NeilBrown