Neil Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Some things are not achievable with block-level raid. For example, with
>> redundancy integrated into the filesystem, you can have three copies for
>> metadata, two copies for small files, and parity blocks for large files,
>> effectively using different raid levels for different types of data on
>> the same filesystem.
>>
>
> Absolutely. And doing that is a very good idea quite independent of
> underlying RAID. Even ext2 stores multiple copies of the superblock.
>
> Having the filesystem duplicate data, store checksums, and be able to
> find a different copy if the first one it chose was bad is very
> sensible and cannot be done by just putting the filesystem on RAID.
>
It would need to know a lot about the RAID geometry in order not to put
the the copies on the same disks.
> Having the filesystem keep multiple copies of each data block so that
> when one drive dies, another block is used does not excite me quite so
> much. If you are going to do that, then you want to be able to
> reconstruct the data that should be on a failed drive onto a new
> drive.
> For a RAID system, that reconstruction can go at the full speed of the
> drive subsystem - but needs to copy every block, whether used or not.
> For in-filesystem duplication, it is easy to imagine that being quite
> slow and complex. It would depend a lot on how you arrange data,
> and maybe there is some clever approach to data layout that I haven't
> thought of. But I think that sort of thing is much easier to do in a
> RAID layer below the filesystem.
>
You'd need a reverse mapping of extents to files. While maintaining
that is expensive, it brings a lot of benefits:
- rebuild a failed drive, without rebuilding free space
- evacuate a drive in anticipation of taking it offline
- efficient defragmentation
Reverse mapping storage could serve as free space store too.
> Combining these thoughts, it would make a lot of sense for the
> filesystem to be able to say to the block device "That blocks looks
> wrong - can you find me another copy to try?". That is an example of
> the sort of closer integration between filesystem and RAID that would
> make sense.
>
It's a step forward, but still quite limited compared to combining the
two layers together. Sticking with the example above, you still can't
have a mix of parity-protected files and mirror-protected files; the
RAID decides that for you.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
