[re-adding ceph-devel to the cc] On 26/09/2013 20:36, Andreas-Joachim Peters wrote:> Hi Loic, > today I forked he CEPH repository and will commit my changes to my GitHub fork asap ... (I am not familiar with GitHub in particular). > I was finalizing the minimim_to_decode function today with test cases (it is more sophisticated in this case ...) ... I didn't fully get what the 'with cost' function is supposed to do diffrent from the one without cost? I'd be happy to explain if https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/osd/ErasureCodeInterface.h#L131 is unclear. Would you be so kind as to tell me what is confusing in the description ? > > > Cheers Andreas. > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:loic@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 25/09/2013 20:33, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote:> Yes, sure. I actually thought the same in the meanwhile ... I have some questions: > > > > Q: Can/should it stay in the framework of google test's or you would prefer just a plain executable ? > > > > A plain executable would make sense. An simple example from src/test/Makefile.am : > > ceph_test_trans_SOURCES = test/test_trans.cc > ceph_test_trans_LDADD = $(LIBOS) $(CEPH_GLOBAL) > bin_DEBUGPROGRAMS += ceph_test_trans > > > > I have added local parity support to your erasure class adding a new argument: "erasure-code-lp" and > > two new methods: > > > > localparity_encode(...) > > localparity_decode(...) > > > > I made a more complex benchmark of (8,2) + 2 local parities (1^2^3^4, 5^6^7^8) which benchmarks performance of encoding/decoding as speed & effective write-latency for three cases (each for liberation & cauchy_good codecs): > > > > 1 (8,2) > > 2 (8,2,lp=2) > > 3 (8,2,lp=2) + crc32c (blocks) > > > > and several failure scenarios ... single, double, triple disk failures. Probably the best is if I make all this parameters configurable. > > Great :-) Do you have a public git repository where I could clone this & give it a try ? > > > Q: For the local parity implementation .... shall I inherit from your erasure plugin and overwrite the encode/decode method or you would consider a patch to the original class? > > It is a perfect timing for a patch to the original class. > > > I have also a 128-bit XOR implementation for the local parities. This will work with new gcc's & clang compilers ... > > > > Q: Which compilers/platforms are supported by CEPH? Is there a minimal GCC version? > > You can see all supported platforms here: > > http://ceph.com/gitbuilder.cgi > > I don't think the GCC version shows in the logs but you can probably figure it out from the corresponding distribution. > > > Q: is there some policy restricting comments within code? In general I see very few or no comments within the code .. > > :-) The mon code tends to be more heavily commented than the osd code (IMO) but I'm not aware of any policy. When I feel the need to comment, I write a unit test. If the unit test is difficult, I tend to comment to clarify its purpose. The problem with comments is that they quickly become obsolete and/or misleading. That being said, I don't think anyone will object if you heavily comment your code. > > Cheers > > > 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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
