Post by Ronny Egner
i was wondering what happened with the patch posted by Andrea Mazzole=
Post by Ronny Egner
Why wash=C2=B4t it added to the code? Something missing/wrong?
In my opinion the posted patch is awesome and would enable a unique
feature to btrfs that no file system / volume manager on Linux and ot=
Post by Ronny Egner
UNIX-operating system currently has.
That, along with a bunch of other features, is on the longer term
roadmap and will likely eventually be implemented. Actually, the=20
discussion involves a quite flexible plan where number of=20
redundancies/parities/strips-per-strip are all configurable along=20
I wouldn't recommend expecting it any time soon, however, as btrfs=20
features have repeatedly taken far longer to implement and become stabl=
than originally predicted.
In fact, the big feature I've been waiting for, N-way-mirroring (curren=
btrfs raid1 mode is 2-way-mirroring regardless of the number of devices=
more devices simply adds more capacity), has been on the roadmap for=20
implementation "right after raid56 mode" for something like two years=20
now, with raid56 mode originally due to drop in kernel 3.5.
Needless to say, 3.5 came and went with no raid56. So did 3.6 and 3.7=20
and 3.8. An incomplete implementation finally dropped as of 3.9,=20
complete in normal operation but lacking a working scrub and reliable=20
That was 3.9, and 3.17 was recently released. Two plus years since=20
original planned drop and 12 kernel series later, a year and a half plu=
and 8 kernel series since the original partial implementation drop, rai=
mode is still incomplete. tho some progress has been made.
Altho certainly the devs haven't been idle. /Tremendous/ progress has=20
been made in general btrfs stability in that time. It's just that, wel=
stability /did/ become the overriding focus, and in that time, btrfs ha=
gone from a definitely experimental filesystem that could and did often=
eat data, to one that's still not entirely stable and where backups for=
data of any value are still strongly recommended, but that works pretty=
well, most of the time for most users, including not only the tradition=
filesystem features, but even most of the existing non-traditional=20
features that are (nearly) btrfs specific.
But the roadmap remains, after completion of raid56 mode, n-way-mirrori=
should be next.
And with a bit of luck, with n-way-mirroring will come a redo of the wa=
btrfs handles mirrors/parity/stripes to fit into the larger framework=20
with each one on its own access so they can be even more flexibly=20
combined. After all, some of that will be needed in ordered to=20
accommodate n-way-mirroring anyway, and they might as well redo the=20
framework for how it's all specified at the same time, since it has=20
already been discussed and there's a vision there.
Of course with the experience I've had waiting for raid56 and knowing i=
wasn't the first feature to take much longer than anticipated, I don't=20
really expect n-way-mirroring, at least complete and stable enough to b=
less risk rather than more compared to the current 2-way-mirroring raid=
to take much under a year, particularly if it introduces the raid-
framework redo along with it.
But once that is done, plugging in further raid expansions including 3+=
way-parity should be a comparatively minor detail.
But, I'd guess we're looking at at /least/ two years out, another coupl=
kernel cycles anyway to complete raid56, say another year to complete n=
way-mirroring and the raid-framework redo, and another several kernel=20
cycles after that for 3+-way-parity. So realistically, 2-2.5 years, an=
that's assuming no 2+-year delays on n-way-mirroring as happened with=20
raid56, and integration of the raid-framework redo into the same year's=
time I'm allowing for n-way-mirroring. And given project history, that=
could /easily/ stretch to 5+ years.
So bottom line, as I said up top, it's on the roadmap, but don't expect=
it any time soon. Realistically at least two years out, and it could b=
Unless of course you have a spare kernel and filesystems developer or=20
two, along with their sponsorship, to dedicate to the task. Tho even=20
then, given the time it'd take them to come upto speed and the testing=20
the new raid-framework would take, a year and a half to two years out=20
wouldn't be unreasonable.
=46WIW, the other, more mature but not fully GPLv2 kernel license=20
compatible alternative is Sun/Oracle's ZFS. It's a mature filesystem=20
with many promised btrfs features already implemented and long mature,=20
but choosing it does mean either choosing a non-mainline kernel module=20
with questionable legal issues (or the slower userspace code), or=20
choosing a kernel other than Linux -- one of the implementing BSDs or=20
Solaris. That's the most viable current option for some would-be btrfs=
users, tho it's not so viable for others, for various reasons.
The other more general raid solution would be to get the n-way-parity=20
code into the kernel's md- or dmraid implementations. I've no idea wha=
the status is there, but presumably they're considering it, and given=20
btrfs implementation timetables, they may well have it implemented and=20
stable long before btrfs does.
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
the body of a message to ***@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html