Talk:Project ideas

From btrfs Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(RAID 5/6 and different size devices)
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
--[[User:Cg|Cg]] 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Cg|Cg]] 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
If we are going to have a fs for massive allocation; administration and maintenance will be an issue. I would like to see an active '''manager''' system that can be '''clustered''' across PCs. Ideally split into two dynamically changing and balanced workloads between '''guest time''' and '''host time'''.
 +
 +
I envision host time being used for automated fs maintenace tasks that will use upto 90% activity but leave a 10% window for incoming guest work. The guest time will be for live file read/write from the user/guest system(s). As the guest workload increases the Host workload will progressively shut down dynamically reducing to 0% and allowing the guest time to rise to 90% or more on the fly. As guest load drops the host load can rise back to full.
 +
 +
Defragmentation and filesystem integrity checking should be left to this '''manager''', releasing this burden from the admin but allowing the drives to still be utilised at full speed when reqired.
 +
 +
Perhaps an aggression config option can be made available by this clustered '''manager''' system and allow host work disk access to be moderated from a lazy 10% to a rampant 90% with aggression states or levels inbetween. If this would be deemed more prudent for drive life expectancy. Then the admin can can alter this value during the day or night (should change be required for some reason) and worry about little else.
 +
 +
Anyway, such a manager may also allow improvements in drive speed by seperating out essential disk write aspects from less essential disk write aspects.
 +
 +
--[[User:Relic|Relic]] 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:56, 10 March 2009

- What I'm missing is any kind of encryption support.
  It would be nice to include encryption support into btrfs (as long as the on-disk file fromat isn't finished),
  so one can easily handle (upcoming) multiple device (raidB/B2) targets with one key.
  For now I would have to setup LUKS below btrfs, which is very suboptimal for multiple device configurations (raid)

°raidB/B2 is a synonym for btrfs enhanced raid5/6 ;)

André 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


It would be nice to see somewhat intelligent or flexible handling of devices of different sizes with RAID 5/6.

For example, if I had two 250GB drives and two 500GB drives and made a RAID5 of them, the two 250GB devices could be first "combined" to make one 500GB volume and then make the RAID5 on top of the three 500GB volumes. The resulting RAID5 volume would then have ~1000GB of usable space (with distributed parity).

In theory, I could make similar setup by combining the two 250GB drives with md RAID0 first, but this seems unoptimal.

--Cg 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


If we are going to have a fs for massive allocation; administration and maintenance will be an issue. I would like to see an active manager system that can be clustered across PCs. Ideally split into two dynamically changing and balanced workloads between guest time and host time.

I envision host time being used for automated fs maintenace tasks that will use upto 90% activity but leave a 10% window for incoming guest work. The guest time will be for live file read/write from the user/guest system(s). As the guest workload increases the Host workload will progressively shut down dynamically reducing to 0% and allowing the guest time to rise to 90% or more on the fly. As guest load drops the host load can rise back to full.

Defragmentation and filesystem integrity checking should be left to this manager, releasing this burden from the admin but allowing the drives to still be utilised at full speed when reqired.

Perhaps an aggression config option can be made available by this clustered manager system and allow host work disk access to be moderated from a lazy 10% to a rampant 90% with aggression states or levels inbetween. If this would be deemed more prudent for drive life expectancy. Then the admin can can alter this value during the day or night (should change be required for some reason) and worry about little else.

Anyway, such a manager may also allow improvements in drive speed by seperating out essential disk write aspects from less essential disk write aspects.

--Relic 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools