Hi Loic, sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation ... you are right, I did a simple logical mistake since I assumed you loose only the data stripes but never the parity stripes which is a very wrong assumption. Ignore the proposal ! So for testing you probably could just implement (2+1) and then use jerasure or use the dual parity (4+2) algorithm where you build horizontal and diagonal parities (however there is a patent on RAID-DP) Cheers Andreas. ________________________________________ From: Loic Dachary [loic@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 19 August 2013 12:35 To: Andreas Joachim Peters Cc: ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: CEPH Erasure Encoding + OSD Scalability Hi Andreas, Trying to write minimal code as you suggested, for an example plugin. My first attempt at writing an erasure coding function. I don't get how you can rebuild P1 + A from P2 + B + C. I must be missing something obvious :-) Cheers On 07/07/2013 23:04, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote: > > Hi Loic, > I don't think there is a better generic implementation. Just made a benchmark .. the Jerasure library with algorithm 'cauchy_good' gives 1.1 GB/s (Xeon 2.27 GHz) on a single core for a 4+2 encoding w=32. Just to give a feeling if you do 10+4 it is 300 MB/s .... there is a specialized implementation in QFS (Hadoop in C++) for (M+3) ... for curiosity I will make a benchmark with this to compare with Jerasure ... > > In any case I would do an optimized implementation for 3+2 which would be probably the most performant implementation having the same reliability like standard 3-fold replication in CEPH using only 53% of the space. > > 3+2 is trivial since you encode (A,B,C) with only two parity operations > P1 = A^B > P2 = B^C > and reconstruct with one or two parity operations: > A = P1^B > B = P1^A > B = P2^C > C = P2^B > aso. > > You can write this as a simple loop using advanced vector extensions on Intel (AVX). I can paste a benchmark tomorrow. > > Considering the crc32c-intel code you added ... I would provide a function which provides a crc32c checksum and detects if it can do it using SSE4.2 or implements just the standard algorithm e.g if you run in a virtual machine you need this emulation ... > > Cheers Andreas. > ________________________________________ > From: Loic Dachary [loic@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 06 July 2013 22:47 > To: Andreas Joachim Peters > Cc: ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: CEPH Erasure Encoding + OSD Scalability > > Hi Andreas, > > Since it looks like we're going to use jerasure-1.2, we will be able to try (C)RS using > > https://github.com/tsuraan/Jerasure/blob/master/src/cauchy.c > https://github.com/tsuraan/Jerasure/blob/master/src/cauchy.h > > Do you know of a better / faster implementation ? Is there a tradeoff between (C)RS and RS ? > > Cheers > > On 06/07/2013 15:43, Andreas-Joachim Peters wrote: >> HI Loic, >> (C)RS stands for the Cauchy Reed-Solomon codes which are based on pure parity operations, while the standard Reed-Solomon codes need more multiplications and are slower. >> >> Considering the checksumming ... for comparison the CRC32 code from libz run's on a 8-core Xeon at ~730 MB/s for small block sizes while SSE4.2 CRC32C checksum run's at ~2GByte/s. >> >> Cheers Andreas. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:loic@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> Hi Andreas, >> >> On 04/07/2013 23:01, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote:> Hi Loic, >> > thanks for the responses! >> > >> > Maybe this is useful for your erasure code discussion: >> > >> > as an example in our RS implementation we chunk a data block of e.g. 4M into 4 data chunks of 1M. Then we create a 2 parity chunks. >> > >> > Data & parity chunks are split into 4k blocks and these 4k blocks get a CRC32C block checksum each (SSE4.2 CPU extension => MIT library or BTRFS). This creates 0.1% volume overhead (4 bytes per 4096 bytes) - nothing compared to the parity overhead ... >> > >> > You can now easily detect data corruption using the local checksums and avoid to read any parity information and (C)RS decoding if there is no corruption detected. Moreover CRC32C computation is distributed over several (in this case 4) machines while (C)RS decoding would run on a single machine where you assemble a block ... and CRC32C is faster than (C)RS decoding (with SSE4.2) ... >> >> What does (C)RS mean ? (C)Reed-Solomon ? >> >> > In our case we write this checksum information separate from the original data ... while in a block-based storage like CEPH it would be probably inlined in the data chunk. >> > If an OSD detects to run on BRTFS or ZFS one could disable automatically the CRC32C code. >> >> Nice. I did not know that was built-in :-) >> https://github.com/dachary/ceph/blob/wip-4929/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure-code.rst#scrubbing >> >> > (wouldn't CRC32C be also useful for normal CEPH block replication? ) >> >> I don't know the details of scrubbing but it seems CRC is already used by deep scrubbing >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/osd/PG.cc#L2731 >> >> Cheers >> >> > As far as I know with the RS CODEC we use you can either miss stripes (data =0) in the decoding process but you cannot inject corrupted stripes into the decoding process, so the block checksumming is important. >> > >> > Cheers Andreas. >> >> -- >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. >> >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. > > -- > 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 > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. -- 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
