Thanks all for your quick responses and for the value you bring to the community.
I realized my terminology 'SNAFU' as soon as I hit send, so thanks for the clarification. Lastly, can you provide an ETA as to when EC within Swift will become production ready? If that is confidential I understand. Thanks! On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Luse, Paul E <paul.e.l...@intel.com> wrote: > The answer totally depends on how you choose to configure EC. We > generally refer to the “extra storage” as the overhead of the durability > policy. For triple replication, obviously its 3x (you buy 3x the usable > capacity you need). For EC it depends not only on which scheme you choose > but the partakers that you configure. For example Swift will support a few > different Read Solomon schemes out of the box (when its done) and from > there you can choose the ratio of data:parity such as 10:4 where you’d have > 14 total disks, 10 of them for data and 4 for parity. In this scheme you > could lose 4 disks and still recover your data and your overhead would be > 1.4 (14/10) as opposed to triple replication of 3 (3/1) > > > > -Paul > > > > *From:* Brent Troge [mailto:brenttroge2...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:41 PM > *To:* openstack@lists.openstack.org > *Subject:* [Openstack] Swift And Erasure Code Storage > > > > > > With a 100% 'Erasure Code' policy how much extra storage is needed to > satisfy a 1PB usable cluster ? > > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
