Re: Split RAID: Proposal for archival RAID using incremental batch checksum

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

 



On 2 December 2014 at 17:26, Anshuman Aggarwal
<anshuman.aggarwal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It works! (Atleast on a sample 5 MB device with 5 x 1MB partitions :-)
> will find more space on my drives and do a larger test but don't see
> why it shouldn't work)
> Here are the following caveats (and questions):
> - Neil, like you pointed out, the power of 2 chunk size will probably
> need a code change (in the kernel or only in the userspace tool?)
>     - Any performance or other reasons why a terabyte size chunk may
> not be feasible?
> - Implications of safe_mode_delay
>     - Would the metadata be updated on the block device be written to
> and the parity device as well?
>     - If the drive  fails which is the same as the drive being written
> to, would that lack of metadata updates to the other devices affect
> reconstruction?
> - Adding new devices (is it possible to move the parity to the disk
> being added? How does device addition work for RAID4 ...is it added as
> a zero-ed out device with parity disk remaining the same)
>
>

Neil, sorry to try to bump this thread. Could you please look over the
questions and address the points on the remaining items that can make
it a working solution? Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux