From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Javier Guerra <javier@guerrag.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Sheepdog: Distributed Storage System
	for KVM
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:10:03 -0500
Message-ID: <90eb1dc70910230810o5b86d14egec2b3514711c6bc4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4ADE988B.2070303@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4AE07A7F.8000002@redhat.com>
	 <8fd1d76d0910230341w7978ac09te203ef34b79a86c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <90eb1dc70910230714h65e918a4n255bcf97634b26b0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20091023145815.GE18955@arachsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
To: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20091023145815.GE18955@arachsys.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com> wrote:
> If the chunks into which the virtual drives are split are quite small=
 (say
> the 64MB used by Hadoop), LVM may be a less appropriate choice. It do=
esn't
> support very large numbers of very small logical volumes very well.

absolutely.  the 'nicest' way to do it would be to use a single block
device per sheep process, and do the splitting there.

it's an extra layer of code, and once you add non-na=C3=AFve behavior f=
or
deleting and fragmentation, you quickly approach filesystem-like
complexity.....

unless you can do some very clever mapping that reuses the consistent
hash algorithms to find not only which server(s) you want, but also
which chunk to hit....  the kind of things i'd love to code, but never
found the use for it.

i'll definitely dig deeper in the code.

--=20
Javier