From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([194.63.252.55]:41002 "EHLO smtp.domeneshop.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728522AbeGPWVF (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:21:05 -0400 Reply-To: waxhead@dirtcellar.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] 3- and 4- copy RAID1 From: waxhead To: David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <9945d460-99b5-a927-a614-c797bbc7862d@dirtcellar.net> Message-ID: <04dd1b9a-e193-0be1-54fe-b6297e378e42@dirtcellar.net> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 23:51:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9945d460-99b5-a927-a614-c797bbc7862d@dirtcellar.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: waxhead wrote: > David Sterba wrote: >> An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked >> something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal. >> Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the >> non-standard raid varieties of the btrfs flavor: >> >> https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=136286324417767 >> >> Switching to this naming would be a good addition to the extended raid. >> > As just a humble BTRFS user I agree and really think it is about time to > move far away from the RAID terminology. However adding some more > descriptive profile names (or at least some aliases) would be much > better for the commoners (such as myself). >...snip... > Which would make the above table look like so: > > Old format / My Format / My suggested alias > SINGLE  / R0.S0.P0 / SINGLE > DUP     / R1.S1.P0 / DUP (or even MIRRORLOCAL1) > RAID0   / R0.Sm.P0 / STRIPE > RAID1   / R1.S0.P0 / MIRROR1 > RAID1c3 / R2.S0.P0 / MIRROR2 > RAID1c4 / R3.S0.P0 / MIRROR3 > RAID10  / R1.Sm.P0 / STRIPE.MIRROR1 > RAID5   / R1.Sm.P1 / STRIPE.PARITY1 > RAID6   / R1.Sm.P2 / STRIPE.PARITY2 > > And i think this is much more readable, but others may disagree. And as > a side note... from a (hobby) coders perspective this is probably > simpler to parse as well. >...snap... ...and before someone else points this out that my suggestion has an ugly flaw , I got a bit copy / paste happy and messed up the RAID 5 and 6 like profiles. The below table are corrected and hopefully it make the point why using the word 'replicas' is easier to understand than 'copies' even if I messed it up :) Old format / My Format / My suggested alias SINGLE / R0.S0.P0 / SINGLE DUP / R1.S1.P0 / DUP (or even MIRRORLOCAL1) RAID0 / R0.Sm.P0 / STRIPE RAID1 / R1.S0.P0 / MIRROR1 RAID1c3 / R2.S0.P0 / MIRROR2 RAID1c4 / R3.S0.P0 / MIRROR3 RAID10 / R1.Sm.P0 / STRIPE.MIRROR1 RAID5 / R0.Sm.P1 / STRIPE.PARITY1 RAID6 / R0.Sm.P2 / STRIPE.PARITY2