Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:52:31 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" <matheus@eternamente.info> To: "Ulf Lilleengen" <ulf.lilleengen@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Merge of projects/gvinum to head Message-ID: <796884d5ade2c19ab4f46318e2147128.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20090317094911.GA2155@carrot.tudelft.net> References: <20090316155800.GA2257@carrot> <20090316155957.GA2385@carrot> <b899df246a4ea808b9f048c635a11fc4.squirrel@10.1.1.10> <20090317094911.GA2155@carrot.tudelft.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, March 17, 2009 06:49, Ulf Lilleengen wrote: > On man, mar 16, 2009 at 11:07:12pm -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >> >> On Mon, March 16, 2009 12:59, Ulf Lilleengen wrote: >> > On man, mar 16, 2009 at 04:58:00pm +0100, Ulf Lilleengen wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> This is a heads-up for a merge of gvinum project code into HEAD. This >> >> means >> >> that gvinum implementation will be changed some. The code is based on >> >> the >> >> work done by Lukas Ertl as well as the work I did before/during >> Google >> >> SoC >> >> 2007 and afterwards. It has been staying in p4 for some time, and >> then >> >> moved >> >> to the subversion project repository not long ago. The main reason >> for >> >> the >> >> delay of getting this into HEAD have been the lack of reviewers of >> the >> >> code, >> >> but after some discussion and help from testers, I've decided this is >> a >> >> good >> >> time to get it in (should perhaps have been merged a bit earlier) >> >> Testers >> >> have spotted several differences from the original gvinum, and I've >> >> tried to >> >> make it behave as the old implementation wherever that seemed the >> best >> >> way to >> >> go. Luckily, the work has gotten a bit of attention lately, thanks to >> >> Rick C. >> >> Petty for helping out with testing and bugfixing, as well as all >> others >> >> who >> >> have dared to run the new gvinum. So, what does this update offer? >> > >> > And I plan on importing it within 1-2 weeks :) >> >> great work, thanks. >> >> what's the status of raid5 ? is it ok to production enviroments ? I have >> been using gmirror and gstripe just cause I can't do raid5 and I'm >> waiting >> for ZFS to hit production state. >> > I would say that since the raid5 code hasn't changed much in terms of > functionality, meaning that much of the code concerning raid5 is the same, > it > should provide at least the same production quality as gvinum in 7.x. What > are your experiences with gvinum raid5 in 7.x? none, as I always read that the code was not ok or was not doing what raid5 is all about (those parity counts), I never was brave enough to try it. is this all wrong ? > It should preferably be tested out a bit more before, as it's really hard > to > make any guarantees. I guess this is why it's so hard to get people to > test > storage-stuff as well, as few are willing to risk their data :) I plan on > doing more stress-tests on it as well, to see if there are any edge cases. yep, risk all your data is a major problem. I'm about to create a zfs pool in current code to begin test it (and learn) to make my home storage a zfs pool in future (maybe when 8.0R is born =] ). my time is not so great nowadays, but I may test things depending on the needs. All I have now is a three 160GB array (regular sataII disks) on intel ich9 sata controler. And current from yesterday (16-03-2009). best regards, matheus > Ulf Lilleengen > -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?796884d5ade2c19ab4f46318e2147128.squirrel>