Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

enhancement: multiple block stores with usage policies #4141

Open
elitak opened this issue Aug 13, 2017 · 5 comments
Open

enhancement: multiple block stores with usage policies #4141

elitak opened this issue Aug 13, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@elitak
Copy link

elitak commented Aug 13, 2017

Type: Enhancement

Severity: Medium

Description:

If I have a very fast SSD and a very slow magnetic archive disk, I'd like some way to direct the ipfs daemon to use them according to some flags I can set through ipfs config and ipfs pin.

First, there would need to be a way to designate different block stores in separate directories, leaving it to the user to mount whatever disks there appropriately. In the config, each store could be marked with a relative performance value (positive integer; ∈ Z-+).

Second, when setting pins, there could be a similar --availability option to assign a similar value to pinned objects. The initial ipfs add would try to use a store that had a performance value at least as high as the availability value. When garbage collecting, objects could be rearranged in a way that prioritized storing higher-availability objects on faster storage, including: swapping out pinned objects that have had that value lowered; and accounting for storage limits that have changed or been hit, reclaiming more performant space as necessary.

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

Very interesting idea. I remember @travisperson talking about a similar thing a while back.

@Kubuxu
Copy link
Member

Kubuxu commented Aug 29, 2017

This could mean creating structure that would hold info about blocks, which might be very useful for other things too.

@magik6k
Copy link
Member

magik6k commented Aug 30, 2017

This might fit into new interfaces proposed in ipfs/notes#255

@Stebalien
Copy link
Member

Stebalien commented Aug 30, 2017 via email

@travisperson
Copy link
Member

There isn't anything in the issue, but it's #403. Here are the IRC logs when I first asked about this for context: https://botbot.me/freenode/ipfs/2014-10-10/?msg=23269334&page=2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants