From: Jim Salter <jim@jrs-s.net>
To: Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: btrfs-RAID(3 or 5/6/etc) like btrfs-RAID1?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:32:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52FCF383.9090304@jrs-s.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140213162140.GW6490@carfax.org.uk>
That is FANTASTIC news. Thank you for wielding the LART gently. =)
I do a fair amount of public speaking and writing about next-gen
filesystems (example:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/bitrot-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/)
and I will be VERY sure to talk about the upcoming divorce of stripe
size from array size in future presentations. This makes me positively
giddy.
FWIW, after writing the above article I got contacted by a proprietary
storage vendor who wanted to tell me all about his midmarket/enterprise
product, and he was pretty audibly flummoxed when I explained how
btrfs-RAID1 distributes data and redundancy - his product does something
similar (to be fair, his product also does a lot of other things btrfs
doesn't inherently do, like clustered storage and synchronous dedup),
and he had no idea that anything freely available did anything vaguely
like it.
I have a feeling the storage world - even the relatively well-informed
part of it that's aware of ZFS - has little to no inclination how
gigantic of a splash btrfs is going to make when it truly hits the
mainstream.
>> This could be a pretty powerful setup IMO - if you implemented
>> something like this, you'd be able to arbitrarily define your
>> storage efficiency (percentage of parity blocks / data blocks) and
>> your fault-tolerance level (how many drives you can afford to lose
>> before failure) WITHOUT tying it directly to your underlying disks,
>> or necessarily needing to rebalance as you add more disks to the
>> array. This would be a heck of a lot more flexible than ZFS'
>> approach of adding more immutable vdevs.
>>
>> Please feel free to tell me why I'm dumb for either 1. not realizing
>> the obvious flaw in this idea or 2. not realizing it's already being
>> worked on in exactly this fashion. =)
> The latter. :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-13 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-13 16:13 btrfs-RAID(3 or 5/6/etc) like btrfs-RAID1? Jim Salter
2014-02-13 16:21 ` Hugo Mills
2014-02-13 16:32 ` Jim Salter [this message]
2014-02-13 18:23 ` Hugo Mills
2014-02-13 20:22 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2014-02-13 20:52 ` Hugo Mills
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=52FCF383.9090304@jrs-s.net \
--to=jim@jrs-s.net \
--cc=hugo@carfax.org.uk \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).