On 10/05/2014 14:40, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote: > Hi Loic, > I think it is good to have the flexibility to include the global parity > stripes in local subgroups or as in the picture to make a subgroup out of the > global parities and compute a local paritiy for them. Although with the > chosen parameters these local subgroups are not symmetric (5,5 and 4 chunks > per group) but e.g. for 8+4 one would have 3 symmetric local groups as drawn > and if you project is on a three data center setup you would like to have for > each center a local parity. > > But wasn't this already possible with your prototype implementation?
It was possible to distribute in this way, indeed. But there is no support for the implied parity idea. I wonder how that would fit. Cheers > > Cheers Andreas. > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Loic Dachary [[email protected]] > Sent: 09 May 2014 17:35 > To: Andreas Joachim Peters > Cc: Ceph Development > Subject: Implied parity and erasure code > > Hi Andreas, > > The "implied parity bloc" mentionned page 4 of > http://anrg.usc.edu/~maheswaran/Xorbas.pdf is something we've not discussed > in the context of the implementation of the pyramid erasure code plugin. I'm > not sure if it would be useful to have. Do you have an opinion ? > > Cheers > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
