On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 03:20:51 +0200 Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:23:32PM +0000, Eduardo Horvath wrote: > > chunks. Or to add support for that to RAIDframe. > ............... > > That would help LFS and much more. And you can do it without having > > to touch the LFS code. > > > I have been thinking about this, and I think that this is the best > option, although I like more integrate it with LFS as I said in my > previous mail, adding to RAIDframe it can be used/tested by more > people and it is possible that more developers/testers are involved. > Integrating it inside of LFS surely will be a one man project, that it > is very possible that it isn't finished. > Other bonus of integrating it with RAIDframe, it is can resolve the > problems of write hole of raid: > http://www.raid-recovery-guide.com/raid5-write-hole.aspx > I don't know if NetBSD resolves the problem of write hole (it has > penalty in performance to resolve it). RAIDframe maintains a 'Parity status:', which indicates whether or not all the parity is up-to-date. Jed Davis did the GSoC work to add the 'parity map' stuff which significantly reduces the amount of effort needed to ensure the parity is up-to-date after a crash. (Basically RAIDframe checks (and corrects) any parity blocks in any modified regions of the RAID set.) Later... Greg Oster
