Hi Christopher, You wrote "A modified client/library could be used to store objects that should be sharded, vs "standard" ceph treatment. In this model, each shard would be written to a seperate PG, and each PG would we stored on exactly one OSD. " but there is no way for a client to enforce the fact that two objects are stored in separate PG. Am I missing something ? On 04/22/2013 09:23 AM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > Supposedly, on 2013-Apr-18, at 14.31 PDT(-0700), someone claiming to be Plaetinck, Dieter scribed: > >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:09:52 -0500 >> Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> >> >> @Bryan: I did come across cleversafe. all the articles around it seemed promising, >> but unfortunately it seems everything related to the cleversafe open source project >> somehow vanished from the internet. (e.g. http://www.cleversafe.org/) quite weird... >> >> @Sage: interesting. I thought it would be more relatively simple if one assumes >> the restriction of immutable files. I'm not familiar with those ceph specifics you're mentioning. >> When building an erasure codes-based system, maybe there's ways to reuse existing ceph >> code and/or allow some integration with replication based objects, without aiming for full integration or >> full support of the rados api, based on some tradeoffs. >> >> @Josh, that sounds like an interesting approach. Too bad that page doesn't contain any information yet :) > > Greetings - it does now - see what you all think… > > Christopher > >> >> Dieter > > > -- > 李柯睿 > Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc > Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf > Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
