Re: Comments on Ceph distributed parity implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi all -- thank you for including me on this thread, although I have little substantive to add.  At the moment, my sole focus is finishing a journal paper about GF implementations, with a concomitant GF-complete release to accompany it.  I agree that the CPU burden of the GF arithmetic will not be a bottleneck in your system, regardless of which implementation you use, as long as you stay at or below GF(2^16).  If you want to go higher, GF-complete will help.  When we put out a new release (the code will be ready within two weeks, however, the documentation is lagging), I'll let you know.  I think LRC is a nice coding paradigm, although I imagine that it has IP issues with Microsoft.  I don't have first-hand experience with network/regenerating codes, and I'll be honest -- there have been so many papers in that realm that I am not up to date on them.

Is there a question on which you'd like some help?  It sounds as though you are at two decision points: What code should you use, and at which point on the space-overhead/fault-tolerance curve would you like to be?

Best wishes,

Jim
----------

On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Benoît Parrein wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> thank you for your message
> 
> from my point, LRC focuses on the repairing problem. how to reconstruct destroyed node to maintain the same availability by the distributed system?
> in this context they can even go below 1x rate by introducing local parity on classical Reed Solomon blocks (but they pay a supplementary overhead). see excellent Alex Dimakis's papers for that. but, still from my point, the same relationship between redundancy and availability occurs (if you consider binomial model for your loses).
> 
> best
> bp
> 
> 
> Le 17/06/2013 18:55, Paul Von-Stamwitz a écrit :
>> Loic,
>> 
>> As Benoit points out, Mojette uses discrete geometry rather than algebra, so simple XOR is all that is needed.
>> 
>> Benoit,
>> 
>> Microsoft's paper states that their [12,2,2] LRC provides better availability than 3x replication with 1.33x efficiency. 1.5x is certainly a good number. I'm just pointing out that better efficiency can be had without losing availibity.
>> 
>> All the best,
>> Paul
> 
> <benoit_parrein.vcf>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux