On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 02:25, Derek Vadala wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> It'll waste 9 drives, giving me a total capacity of 7n instead of 14n.
> And, by definition, RAID-6 _can_ withstand _any_ two-drive failure.
This is certainly not true.
Combining N RAID-5 into a stripe wastes on N disks.
Hot spares are quite a nice way to increase the reliability of your
arrays, somewhat. You can still be in trouble if a second disk fails
before the resync finishes, but at that point you're probably talking
about something of a more catastrophic failure, perhaps outside of the
machine itself.
> With a 1500MHz Athlon on a typical file server where there's not much
> writes, the CPU is sitting there chrunching RC5-64 som 99,95 % of the
> time. I don't think it'll make much differnce with today's CPUs
It's up to you to decide if the performance trade-off is worthwhile. I
merely trying to point out that system with 2 RAID-5 is likely to incur
the same CPU hit as a single RAID-6, implemented in the kernel.
The issue isn't so much CPU load, but latency. I'm too lazy to go read
a summary on RAID 6, but with RAID 5, blocks to be written as part of a
stripe often need to be read from the disk in order to generate the
parity. Parity calculations are pretty trivial on modern CPUs, but disk
latency certainly isn't. HTH,
Greg
--
Portland, Oregon, USA.
Please don't copy me on replies to the list.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
