Re: [HEADS UP] Merge of projects/gvinum to head

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?

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.

-- 
Ulf Lilleengen