This requests sound reasonable. This work may be worked together for the replicator-optimization patch. We will work on the patch. Any other feedback?
-jiangang -----Original Message----- From: palr...@gmail.com [mailto:palr...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Barton Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:29 AM To: Duan, Jiangang Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net; Zhou, Yuan Subject: Re: [Openstack] ask for comments - Light weight Erasure code framework for swift Overall I've never been super enthusiastic about erasure codes for swift. Figuring out which blocks are missing then re-assembling them is a lot more difficult and expensive than what we do now. But if you can come up with a good scheme for identifying missing blocks and it doesn't double the amount of code in Swift, I'm sure we all have use cases where we'd trade latency for disk usage. - Michael On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Duan, Jiangang <jiangang.d...@intel.com> wrote: > Some of our customers are interested in Erasure code than tri-replicate to > save disk space. > We propose a BP "Light weight Erasure code framework for swift", which > can be found here > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/swift-ec > The general idea is to have some daemon on storage node to do offline scan - > select code object with big enough size to do EC. > > Will glad to hear any feedback on this. > > > -jiangang > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
