Hello,
I've just setup a raid 10 array (6 mirrors striped together) and have two extra drives available as hot spares. The mirrors themselves are composed of two drives on separate scsi controllers to keep the SCSI bus from saturating. The performance of this setup is just phenomenal, but the hot spares are not yet setup.
It appears that when using mdadm that one can use the spare-group feature to share a single hot-spare amongst multiple raid groups. AFAICT, this is done by placing the hot spare or spares in a single mirror, then designating it as part of the same spare group as a number of other mirrors using the same spare-group name. For instance, if /dev/md0 has two spare drives, but /dev/md1 does not, I can do this to share the spares:
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 devices=/dev/sda1,/dev/sde1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdd1 spare-group=g1
ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 devices=/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdf1 spare-group=g1
ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid0 num-devices=2 devices=/dev/md0,/dev/md1
This is very handy, but performance-wise it's suboptimal. When a drive fails the system might activate a spare that's on a different scsi chain than the drive that just failed, reducing overall redundancy and throughput. It'd be nice if when a drive fails, a hot spare on the same chain would be preferred over a drive on a different chain. Of course this is a pretty arbitrary distinction and something that would need configuration, but it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch over what mdadm can do already. Maybe some sort of extended mdadm.conf syntax like:
AFFINITY /dev/sda,/dev/sdb spares=/dev/sdc AFFINITY /dev/sde,/dev/sdf spares=/dev/sdd
(Assuming sda, sdb and sdc are on one chain and sde, sdf, and sdd are on another).
Is an enhancement like this feasible?
Thanks,
-Brendan (blc@xxxxxxxxxx) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
