If we''ve abandoned the idea of putting the number of redundant blocks
into the top bits of the type bitmask (and I hope we have), then we''re
fairly much there. Current code is at:
git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git
git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-progs-raid56.git
We have recovery working, as well as both full-stripe writes and a
temporary hack to allow smaller writes to work (with the ''write
hole''
problem, of course). The main thing we need to do is ensure that we
_always_ do full-stripe writes, and then we can ditch the partial write
support.
I want to do a few other things, but AFAICT none of that needs to delay
the merge:
- Better rebuild support -- if we lose a disk and add a replacement,
we want to recreate only the contents of that disk, rather than
allocating a new chunk elsewhere and then rewriting _everything_.
- Support for more than 2 redundant blocks per stripe (RAID[789] or
RAID6[³⁴⁵] or whatever we''ll call it).
- RAID[56789]0 support.
- Clean up the discard support to do the right thing.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi This is great. How does the current code handle corruption on a drive, or two drives with RAID-6 in a stripe? Is the checksumming done per drive or for the whole stripe? roy On 6. aug.. 2009, at 12.17, David Woodhouse wrote:> If we''ve abandoned the idea of putting the number of redundant blocks > into the top bits of the type bitmask (and I hope we have), then we''re > fairly much there. Current code is at: > > git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git > git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-progs-raid56.git > > We have recovery working, as well as both full-stripe writes and a > temporary hack to allow smaller writes to work (with the ''write hole'' > problem, of course). The main thing we need to do is ensure that we > _always_ do full-stripe writes, and then we can ditch the partial > write > support. > > I want to do a few other things, but AFAICT none of that needs to > delay > the merge: > > - Better rebuild support -- if we lose a disk and add a replacement, > we want to recreate only the contents of that disk, rather than > allocating a new chunk elsewhere and then rewriting _everything_. > > - Support for more than 2 redundant blocks per stripe (RAID[789] or > RAID6[³⁴⁵] or whatever we''ll call it). > > - RAID[56789]0 support. > > - Clean up the discard support to do the right thing. > > -- > David Woodhouse Open Source Technology > Centre > David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel > Corporation > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- > btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >-- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:43 +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:> This is great. How does the current code handle corruption on a drive, > or two drives with RAID-6 in a stripe? Is the checksumming done per > drive or for the whole stripe?http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Woodhouse wrote:> http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.gitSigned-off-by: jim owens <jowens@hp.com> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 95babc1..913c29f 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -2895,7 +2895,7 @@ again: multi->num_stripes = num_stripes; multi->max_errors = max_errors; } - if (raid_map_ret) { + if (raid_map) { sort_parity_stripes(multi, raid_map); *raid_map_ret = raid_map; } -- 1.5.6.3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:32 -0400, jim owens wrote:> @@ -2895,7 +2895,7 @@ again: > multi->num_stripes = num_stripes; > multi->max_errors = max_errors; > } > - if (raid_map_ret) { > + if (raid_map) { > sort_parity_stripes(multi, raid_map); > *raid_map_ret = raid_map; > }Applied (manually, because I think your mail was whitespace-damaged). Thanks. Chris, where do we stand with getting this merged? You were going to sort out the upper layers to handle the minimum write size, weren''t you? I''m also going to do RAID50/60 support, and with hpa''s help I''ll extend it to do RAID7/70 too -- but you''re not waiting for that, are you? -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:15:29AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:32 -0400, jim owens wrote: > > @@ -2895,7 +2895,7 @@ again: > > multi->num_stripes = num_stripes; > > multi->max_errors = max_errors; > > } > > - if (raid_map_ret) { > > + if (raid_map) { > > sort_parity_stripes(multi, raid_map); > > *raid_map_ret = raid_map; > > } > > Applied (manually, because I think your mail was whitespace-damaged). > Thanks. > > Chris, where do we stand with getting this merged? You were going to > sort out the upper layers to handle the minimum write size, weren''t you?Yes, I''m working on sorting that out. Jens distracted me with some depressing benchmarks, but now that those are fixed I can move on ;)> > I''m also going to do RAID50/60 support, and with hpa''s help I''ll extend > it to do RAID7/70 too -- but you''re not waiting for that, are you?Great news, no I''m not waiting for that. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:17 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:> If we''ve abandoned the idea of putting the number of redundant blocks > into the top bits of the type bitmask (and I hope we have), then we''re > fairly much there. Current code is at: > > git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git > git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-progs-raid56.git > > We have recovery working, as well as both full-stripe writes and a > temporary hack to allow smaller writes to work (with the ''write hole'' > problem, of course). The main thing we need to do is ensure that we > _always_ do full-stripe writes, and then we can ditch the partial write > support. > > I want to do a few other things, but AFAICT none of that needs to delay > the merge: > > - Better rebuild support -- if we lose a disk and add a replacement, > we want to recreate only the contents of that disk, rather than > allocating a new chunk elsewhere and then rewriting _everything_. > > - Support for more than 2 redundant blocks per stripe (RAID[789] or > RAID6[³⁴⁵] or whatever we''ll call it). > > - RAID[56789]0 support. > > - Clean up the discard support to do the right thing. >A few comments/questions from the brief look I had at this: 1/ The btrfs_multi_bio struct bears a resemblance to the md stripe_head struct, to the point where it makes me wonder if the generic raid functionality could be shared between md and btrfs via a common ''libraid''. I hope to follow up this wondering with code, but wanted to get the question out in the open lest someone else already determined it was a non-starter. 2/ I question why subvolumes are actively avoiding the the device model. They are in essence virtual block devices with different lifetime rules specific to btrfs. The current behavior of specifying all members on the mount command line eliminates the ability to query, via sysfs, if a btrfs subvolume is degraded/failed, or to assemble the subvolume(s) prior to activating the filesystem. One scenario that comes to mind is handling a 4-disk btrfs filesystem with both raid10 and raid6 subvolumes. Depending on the device discovery order the user may be able to start all subvolumes in the filesystem in degraded mode once the right two disks are available, or maybe it''s ok to start the raid6 subvolume early even if that means the raid10 is failed. Basically, the current model precludes those possibilities and mimics the dmraid "assume all members are available, auto-assemble everything at once, and hide virtual block device details from sysfs" model. 3/ The md-raid6 recovery code assumes that there is always at least two good blocks to perform recovery. That makes the current minimum number of raid6 members 4, not 3. (small nit the btrfs code calls members ''stripes'', in md a stripe of data is a collection of blocks from all members). 4/ A small issue, there appears to be no way to specify different raid10/5/6 data layouts, maybe I missed it. See the --layout option to mdadm. It appears the only layout option is the raid level. Regards, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:51:06PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:> 4/ A small issue, there appears to be no way to specify different > raid10/5/6 data layouts, maybe I missed it. See the --layout option > to mdadm. It appears the only layout option is the raid level.Is this really important? In my all experience, mdadm was the first place when I got asked about RAID layout. No other RAID system known to me exposes such design decision to user. Why would user need to bother with such detail? -- Tomasz Torcz To co nierealne -- tutaj jest normalne. xmpp: zdzichubg@chrome.pl Ziomale na życie mają tu patenty specjalne. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:51:06PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:17 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote: > > If we''ve abandoned the idea of putting the number of redundant blocks > > into the top bits of the type bitmask (and I hope we have), then we''re > > fairly much there. Current code is at: > > > > git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git > > git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-progs-raid56.git > > > > We have recovery working, as well as both full-stripe writes and a > > temporary hack to allow smaller writes to work (with the ''write hole'' > > problem, of course). The main thing we need to do is ensure that we > > _always_ do full-stripe writes, and then we can ditch the partial write > > support. > > > > I want to do a few other things, but AFAICT none of that needs to delay > > the merge: > > > > - Better rebuild support -- if we lose a disk and add a replacement, > > we want to recreate only the contents of that disk, rather than > > allocating a new chunk elsewhere and then rewriting _everything_. > > > > - Support for more than 2 redundant blocks per stripe (RAID[789] or > > RAID6[³⁴⁵] or whatever we''ll call it). > > > > - RAID[56789]0 support. > > > > - Clean up the discard support to do the right thing. > > > > A few comments/questions from the brief look I had at this: > > 1/ The btrfs_multi_bio struct bears a resemblance to the md > stripe_head struct, to the point where it makes me wonder if the > generic raid functionality could be shared between md and btrfs via a > common ''libraid''. I hope to follow up this wondering with code, but > wanted to get the question out in the open lest someone else already > determined it was a non-starter.I''m not opposed to this, but I expect things are different enough in the guts of the implementations to make it awkward. It would be nice to factor out the parts that split a bio up and send it down to the lower devices, which is something that btrfs doesn''t currently do in its raid1,0,10 code.> > 2/ I question why subvolumes are actively avoiding the the device > model. They are in essence virtual block devices with different > lifetime rules specific to btrfs. The current behavior of specifying > all members on the mount command line eliminates the ability to query, > via sysfs, if a btrfs subvolume is degraded/failed, or to assemble the > subvolume(s) prior to activating the filesystem.Today we have an ioctl to scan for btrfs devices and assemble the FS prior to activating it. There is also code Kay Sievers has been working on to integrate the scanning into udev and sysfs. A later version of the btrfs code will just assemble based on what udev has already scanned for us. Subvolumes aren''t quite virtual block devices because they share storage, and in the case of snapshots or clones they can share individual blocks.> One scenario that > comes to mind is handling a 4-disk btrfs filesystem with both raid10 > and raid6 subvolumes. Depending on the device discovery order the > user may be able to start all subvolumes in the filesystem in degraded > mode once the right two disks are available, or maybe it''s ok to start > the raid6 subvolume early even if that means the raid10 is failed. > > Basically, the current model precludes those possibilities and mimics > the dmraid "assume all members are available, auto-assemble everything > at once, and hide virtual block device details from sysfs" model.From a btrfs point of view the FS will mount as long as the metadata required is there. Some day the subvolumes will have the ability to store different raid profiles for differnet subvolumes but that doesn''t happen right now (just the metadata vs data split)> > 3/ The md-raid6 recovery code assumes that there is always at least > two good blocks to perform recovery. That makes the current minimum > number of raid6 members 4, not 3. (small nit the btrfs code calls > members ''stripes'', in md a stripe of data is a collection of blocks > from all members). > > 4/ A small issue, there appears to be no way to specify different > raid10/5/6 data layouts, maybe I missed it. See the --layout option > to mdadm. It appears the only layout option is the raid level.Correct, we''re not as flexible as we could be right now. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 3/ The md-raid6 recovery code assumes that there is always at least > two good blocks to perform recovery. That makes the current minimum > number of raid6 members 4, not 3. (small nit the btrfs code calls > members ''stripes'', in md a stripe of data is a collection of blocks > from all members).Why would you use RAID6 on three drives instead of mirroring across all of them? I agree it''s an artificial limitation, but would anybody use a RAID6 with fewer than 4 drives? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM, tsuraan <tsuraan@gmail.com> wrote:>> 3/ The md-raid6 recovery code assumes that there is always at least >> two good blocks to perform recovery. That makes the current minimum >> number of raid6 members 4, not 3. (small nit the btrfs code calls >> members ''stripes'', in md a stripe of data is a collection of blocks >> from all members). > > Why would you use RAID6 on three drives instead of mirroring across > all of them? I agree it''s an artificial limitation, but would anybody > use a RAID6 with fewer than 4 drives?Here is some text I wrote on a local linux-users-group list a few months ago, on a thread talking about cost/reliability trade-off on small arrays. (it doesn''t seem to be in a public archive) Lets also consider another configuration: Raid 0: 4 * 1TB WD RE3s = $640; 4TB; $0.160/GB WD1002FBYS (1TB WD RE3) has a spec MTBF of 1.2 million hours. Lets assume a mean time to replace for each drive of 72 hours, I think thats a reasonably prompt response for a disk at home. Raid 0 1.2million hours/4 = 34.22313483 yrs MTBF $4.675/TB/MTBF_YEAR Raid 5 1.2million_hrs * (1.2million_hrs/(4*3*72)) = 190,128 yrs MTBF $0.00112/TB/MTBF_YEAR Raid 0+1 (1.2million_hrs * 1.2million_hrs / (2 * 72))/2 = 570,386 yrs MTBF $.00056102/TB/MTBF_YEAR Raid 6 1.2million_hrs*1.2million_hrs*1.2million_hrs/(4*3*2*72*72) 1,584,404,390 yrs MTBF $0.00000020/TB/MTBF_YEAR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Possibly Parallel Threads
- RAID[56] with arbitrary numbers of "parity" stripes.
- [RFC] btrfs-progs: fix sparse checking and warnings
- [PATCH 00/11] Btrfs: some patches for 3.3
- [PATCH v3 0/3] btrfs: quasi-round-robin for chunk allocation
- [PATCH v2 0/3] btrfs: quasi-round-robin for chunk allocation