[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070613103522.GW28279@think.oraclecorp.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:35:22 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Btrfs: a copy on write, snapshotting FS
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:46:20PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> writes:
>
> Chris> After the last FS summit, I started working on a new filesystem
> Chris> that maintains checksums of all file data and metadata. Many
> Chris> thanks to Zach Brown for his ideas, and to Dave Chinner for his
> Chris> help on benchmarking analysis.
>
> Chris> The basic list of features looks like this:
>
> Chris> * Extent based file storage (2^64 max file size)
> Chris> * Space efficient packing of small files
> Chris> * Space efficient indexed directories
> Chris> * Dynamic inode allocation
> Chris> * Writable snapshots
> Chris> * Subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots)
> Chris> - Object level mirroring and striping
> Chris> * Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available)
> Chris> - Strong integration with device mapper for multiple device support
> Chris> - Online filesystem check
> Chris> * Very fast offline filesystem check
> Chris> - Efficient incremental backup and FS mirroring
>
> So, can you resize a filesystem both bigger and smaller? Or is that
> implicit in the Object level mirroring and striping?
Growing the FS is just either extending or adding a new extent tree.
Shrinking is more complex. The extent trees do have back pointers to
the objectids that own the extent, but snapshotting makes that a little
non-deterministic. The good news is there are no fixed locations for
any of the metadata. So it is at least possible to shrink and pop out
arbitrary chunks.
>
> As a user of Netapps, having quotas (if only for reporting purposes)
> and some way to migrate non-used files to slower/cheaper storage would
> be great.
So far, I'm not planning quotas beyond the subvolume level.
>
> Ie. being able to setup two pools, one being RAID6, the other being
> RAID1, where all currently accessed files are in the RAID1 setup, but
> if un-used get migrated to the RAID6 area.
HSM in general is definitely interesting. I'm afraid it is a long ways
off, but it could be integrated into the scrubber that wanders the trees
in the background.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists