On 14/02/2023 22:28, Roger Heflin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:27 PM Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...which is RAID1 plus a parity disk which seems superfluous as you achieve (N-1)
resilience against single device failures already without the later.
What would you need such parity disk for?
Heinz
I thought that at first too, but threw that idea out as it did not
make much sense.
What he appears to want is 8 linear non-striped data disks + a parity disk.
Such that you can lose any one data disk and parity can rebuild that
disk. And if you lose several data diskis, then you have intact
non-striped data for the remaining disks.
But all your lost disks are lost (until you rebuild parity. The lost
disks are still lost, but you won't lose any more, unless lightning
strikes twice).
It would almost seem that you would need to put a separate filesystem
on each data disk/section (or have a filesystem that is redundant
enough to survive) otherwise losing an entire data disk would leave
the filesystem in a mess..
So N filesystems + a parity disk for the data on the N separate
filesystems. And each write needs you to read the data from the disk
you are writing to, and the parity and recalculate the new parity and
write out the data and new parity.
If the parity disk was an SSD it would be fast enough, but if parity
was an SSD I would expect it to get used up/burned out from all of
parity being re-written for each write on each disk unless you bought
an expensive high-write ssd.
I think even cheap SSDs are okay now ...
The only advantage of the setup is that if you lose too many disks you
still have some data.
It is not clear to me that it would be any cheaper if parity needs to
be a normal ssd's (since ssds are about 4x the price/gb and high-write
ones are even more) than a classic bunch of mirrors, or even say a 4
disks raid6 where you can lose any 2 and still have data.
The only (claimed) advantage of the setup is that you can mix and match
disk sizes. Personally, I'd just raid-0 the smaller disks to get a whole
bunch of volumes roughly equal to the largest disk, raid-5 or -6 those
together, and put LVM on the top.
Probably split two disks out to mirror as my / partition away from the
main /home raid/lvm.
This scheme is just too hare-brained imho.
(Oh, and if one drive fails and the others carry on writing, you run the
serious risk of screwing up parity and losing your lost disk, anyway.
It's just not robust in the face of glitches ...)
Cheers,
Wol
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
