From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 22 06:25:38 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B3B106566B for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:25:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DB58FC08 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:25:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:d9a7:15b3:2d22:93e6]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4CAAB4AC1C; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:25:36 +0400 (MSK) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:25:33 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <835526911.20111122102533@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Anthony Chavez In-Reply-To: References: <4ECA11CB.3070506@hexadecagram.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gvinum + geli + gjournal X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:25:38 -0000 Hello, Anthony. You wrote 22 =ED=EE=FF=E1=F0=FF 2011 =E3., 3:37:53: > I have 2 questions regarding graid5: > 1. Why hasn't it made its way to the base FreeBSD distribution yet? Because its code is ugly, almost non-understandable, raises some questions, and lays from style(9) a miles away. I'm rewriting it now, to support same functionality (and to be compatible with existing arrays), but as I didn't see any interest in it (yes, I'm using it by myself, but this your message is first "external" interest I could see for few years), I spend not much time on it. > 2. Has anyone done any rigorous testing with it? It depends on your meaning of word ``rigorous'' :) I'm using it for couple of years, I had several server failures in this time (panics), Ive chaged two failed drives for same size and after that migrate to larger HDDs (5x500Gb -> 5x2Tb) non-stop (almost, growfs need you to unmount FS), and I run some tests in VM after each change. But there is no formal test-suite (yet, but, again, see above about lack of "external" interest, which discourage me). One known semi-bug semi-feature. It cache writes aggressively (which allows it to have perfect linear write speed and avoid re-reads to compute checksum in most real-life cases), and in case of failures, this could lead to "unexpected softupdates inconsistences," as FFS doesn't send FLUSH commands at all, and module could not now, which writers should go synchronous, with minimal possible delay. --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov