From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 17 14:39:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC681065694 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:39:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ulf.lilleengen@gmail.com) Received: from bene1.itea.ntnu.no (bene1.itea.ntnu.no [IPv6:2001:700:300:3::56]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897EB8FC24 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:39:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ulf.lilleengen@gmail.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bene1.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C69F16C796; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from carrot (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:3::184]) by bene1.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4F216C780; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:39:52 +0000 From: Ulf Lilleengen To: Nenhum_de_Nos Message-ID: <20090317143952.GA1630@carrot> References: <20090316155800.GA2257@carrot> <20090316155957.GA2385@carrot> <20090317094911.GA2155@carrot.tudelft.net> <796884d5ade2c19ab4f46318e2147128.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <796884d5ade2c19ab4f46318e2147128.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bene1.itea.ntnu.no Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Merge of projects/gvinum to head X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:39:52 -0000 On tir, mar 17, 2009 at 09:52:31am -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: > > 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 ? > I've not heard of any issues with the actual raid5 algorithms to be wrong, only gvinum being a bit to sensitive when doing administrative stuff like switching disks etc. as it would crash if you didn't do things in the correct order etc. I've used it on a few storage servers without any problems directly related to raid5. -- Ulf Lilleengen