thanks and sorry for a stupid qry suffering from foot-in-the-mouth disease :P On 8/16/05, dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Colonel Hell wrote: > > > I just went thru a couple of papers describing RAID6. > > I dunno how relevant this discussion grp is for the qry ...but here I go :) ... > > I couldnt figure out why is P+Q configuration better over P+q' where > > q' == P. What I mean is instead of calculating a new checksum (thru a > > lot of GF theory etc) just store the parity block (P)again. In this > > case as well we have the same amount of fault tolerance or not > > :-s ... > > this is no better than raid5 at surviving a two disk failure. i.e. > consider the case of two data blocks missing -- you can't reconstruct if > all you have is parity. > > -dean > - 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
