Re: Distributed storage.

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:04:51AM +0400, Manu Abraham (abraham.manu@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/