linux-kernel - Re: clustered MD

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506091331590.13301@nftneq.ynat.uz>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
cc:	Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: clustered MD

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, David Teigland wrote:

>> We do have a valid real world utility. It is to provide
>> high-availability of RAID1 storage  over the cluster. The
>> distributed locking is required only during cases of error and
>> superblock updates and is not required during normal operations,
>> which makes it fast enough for usual case scenarios.
>
> That's the theory, how much evidence do you have of that in practice?
>
>> What are the doubts you have about it?
>
> Before I begin reviewing the implementation, I'd like to better understand
> what it is about the existing raid1 that doesn't work correctly for what
> you'd like to do with it, i.e. I don't know what the problem is.

As I understand things, the problem is ~providing RAID across multiple machines, 
not just across the disks in one machine.

David Lang
--
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/