linux-kernel - Re: Distributed storage.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:19:31 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Distributed storage.

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:04:51AM +0400, Manu Abraham (abraham.manu@...il.com) wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> wrote:
> 
> > TODO list currently includes following main items:
> >     * redundancy algorithm (drop me a request of your own, but it is highly
> >         unlikley that Reed-Solomon based will ever be used - it is too slow
> >         for distributed RAID, I consider WEAVER codes)
> 
> 
> LDPC codes[1][2] have been replacing Turbo code[3] with regards to
> communication links and we have been seeing that transition. (maybe
> helpful, came to mind seeing the mention of Turbo code) Don't know how
> weaver compares to LDPC, though found some comparisons [4][5] But
> looking at fault tolerance figures, i guess Weaver is much better.
> 
> [1] http://www.ldpc-codes.com/
> [2] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240497
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_code
> [4] http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/BD559022A190D41C85257212006CEC11/$File/rj10391.pdf
> [5] http://hplabs.hp.com/personal/Jay_Wylie/publications/wylie_dsn2007.pdf

I've studied and implemented LDPC encoder/decoder (hard decoding belief 
propagation algo only though) in userspace and found that any such 
probabilistic codes generally are not suitable for redundant or 
distributed data storages, because of its per-bit nature and probabilistic
error recovery.
Interested reader can find similar to Dr. Plank's iteractive decoding 
presentation and some of my analysis about codes and all sources at 
project homepage and in blog:

http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/old/?section=projects&item=ldpc

So I consider weaver codes, as a superior decision for distributed
storages.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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/