On Tuesday July 4, [email protected] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > To my mind, the only thing you should put between the filesystem and
> > the raw devices is RAID (real-raid - not raid0 or linear).
> >
> I believe that implementing RAID in the filesystem has many benefits too:
> - multiple RAID levels: store metadata in triple-mirror RAID 1, random
> write intensive data in RAID 1, bulk data in RAID 5/6
> - improved write throughput - since stripes can be variable size, any
> large enough write fills a whole stripe
Maybe....
Now imagine what would be required to rebuild a whole drive onto a
spare after a drive failure.
I'm sure it is possible, and I believe ZFS does something like that.
I find it hard to imagine getting reasonable speed if there is much
complexity. And the longer it takes, the longer your data is exposed
to multiple-failures.
There may well be room there to come up with a really clever idea that
makes it both flexible and fast....
Note that 'resync' wouldn't be a problem. Having the filesystem know
about the raid means that resync (after unclean shutdown) can be quite
trivial (I believe there is a paper related to this at OLS this year).
NeilBrown
-
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]
