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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
