[Gluster-devel] Why vandermonde matrix is used in EC?

한우형 whhan91 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 27 20:58:53 UTC 2016


Thank you so much for the speedy reply, but I have some more questions.

1) I understand Non-systematic encoding/decoding doesn't alter performance
when one or more bricks are down. but why systematic approach has service
I think when parity part is down there's no performance degradation, and
when not-parity part is down it needs to be encoded. but It is same with
Non-systeamtic case.

2) In systematic approach, what kind of metatdata need to be checked? Can't
we just try to read not-parity part?

Best regards,

2016-11-24 17:26 GMT+09:00 Xavier Hernandez <xhernandez at datalab.es>:

> Hi Han,
> On 11/24/2016 04:25 AM, 한우형 wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm working on dispersed volume(ec) and I found ec encode/decode
>> algorithm is using non-systematic vandermonde matrix.
>> My question is this: why non-systematic algorithm is used?
> Non-systematic encoding/decoding doesn't alter performance when one or
> more bricks are down. This means that you won't have service degradation
> when you are having troubles with one brick or you are doing maintenance.
> From the implementation perspective, a systematic approach would need to
> talk to all bricks anyway to check for critical metadata (gluster doesn't
> have a centralized metadata server). This means that the theoretical
> benefit of a systematic decoding for reads would be masked by the overhead
> needed for metadata operations (involving additional network round-trips).
> That said, it's true that a systematic approach would have some benefits,
> like a little less CPU overhead. Not sure if the performance would benefit
> significantly though.
> If we use
>> systematic algorithm(not systematic vandermonde, It's not MDS)
> A non-systematic Vandermonde matrix *IS* MDS. In fact, pure Vandermonde
> matrices are non-systematic by definition. Some alterations need to be done
> to make them systematic, and these transformations can lead to a non MDS
> matrix if not made with care.
> we can
>> boost read performance. (no need to decode step in read)
> Though it would probably have some benefits, I'm not so sure that
> performance would improve significantly.
> Current implementation of ec decoding can process 1GB/s of data per CPU
> core on low end processors (Intel Atoms with SSE2) using block sizes of
> 128KB and a 4+2 configuration. Currently this is much faster than what a
> pure distributed volume on same hardware can read for a single
> client/single thread.
> So, for now, the non-systematic approach doesn't seem a bottle-neck for
> gluster. Anyway there are plans to provide a systematic version, but it's
> not a priority as of now.
> Best regards,
> Xavi
>> Best regards,
>> Han
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20161128/fe0c70af/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list