On 04/27/2017 11:43 PM, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
> Hi Loic,
> Of course.
> I'm implementing a version of Pyramid Code. In Pyramid you remove one of the 
> global parities of Reed-Solomon and add one local parity for each local 
> group. In my version, I'd like to add local parity to the global parity 
> (meaning that for the case the global parity = 1, it would be replicated). 
> This way in case of a failure in the global parity, you can reconstruct it 
> using the replicated node instead of reconstructing it will all K nodes.
> 
> This is my profile:
> ceph osd erasure-code-profile set myprofile \
> plugin=lrc \
> mapping=DD_DD___ \
> layers='[
> [ "DD_DD_c_", "" ],
> [ "DDc_____", "" ],
> [ "___DDc__", "" ],
> [ "______Dc", "" ],
> ]' \
> ruleset-steps='[
> [ "chooseleaf", "osd",  8  ],
> ]'

You could test and see if commenting out the sanity check at

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/erasure-code/jerasure/ErasureCodeJerasure.cc#L89

does the trick. I don't remember enough about this border case to be sure it 
won't work. You can also give it a try with

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/test/erasure-code/ceph_erasure_code_benchmark.cc

Cheers

> Regards,
> Oleg
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Loic Dachary <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Oleg,
> 
>     On 04/27/2017 11:23 PM, Oleg Kolosov wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     > I'm working on various implementation of LRC codes for study purposes. 
> The layers implementation in the LRC module is very convenient for this, but 
> I've came upon a problem in one of the cases.
>     > I'm interested in having k=1, m=1 in one of the layers. However this 
> gives out an error:
>     > Error EINVAL: k=1 must be >= 2
>     >
>     > I should point out that my erasure code has additional layers which are 
> fine, only this one has k=1, m=1.
>     >
>     > What was the reason for this issue?
>     > Can replication be implemented in one of LRC's layers?
> 
>     Could you provide the code for me to reproduce this problem ? Or a 
> description of the layers ? I implemented this restriction because it made 
> the code simpler. And also because I could not think of a valid use case.
> 
>     Cheers
> 
>     --
>     Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to