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

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