Re: RAID5 reconstruction ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Redeeman <redeeman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 20:55 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Redeeman <redeeman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 14:35 +0100, John Robinson wrote:
>> >> On 30/05/2009 06:44, SandeepKsinha wrote:
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > Say If I have a RAID 5 array of 50GB of five disks of 10GB each.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have data of 5GB. When a disk fails and replaced with a spare disk.
>> >> > Will the reconstruction happen only for the 5GB allocated disk blocks
>> >> > or it will happen for the whole disk size.
>> >>
>> >> The whole disc size, for now anyway; md does not currently note which
>> >> blocks have been used by its client (the filesystem, LVM, whatever).
>> >>
>> >> > Is it possible to make  reconstruction intelligent enough to keep it optimized ?
>> >>
>> >> This has been discussed in combination with supporting SSD drives' TRIM
>> >> function, and would mean md had to keep track of used chunks or possibly
>> >> even sectors using a bitmap or something like that, but whether anyone's
>> >> working on it I don't know.
>> >
>> > I would say it should be possible to 'query' the filesystem for that
>> > information. Obviously this will only work if you run a filesystem on it
>> > which supports it, but it would seem like a nicer solution than a bitmap
>> > for it.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John.
>>
>> And just when I hit send I thought of something else.
>>
>> Instead of the initial sync when creating a raid the bitmap could just
>> mark all blocks as unused. Much faster raid creation.
>


This really sounds like a good option. This would have a slight hit
for writes which I believe will compensate for later re-constructions,
replacing a disk, mirror resysnc and many more operation.

Neil any comments on this?

I mean, how difficult would it be to maintain such a bitmap. This can
though of making something optional as this will incur space.


> A filesystem-coexist mode could also do this, by simply refusing
> operation until such a time that a filesystem is detected, or i suppose
> in worst case, mounted...


>
>>
>> MfG
>>         Goswin
>> --
>> 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
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Sandeep.





 	
“To learn is to change. Education is a process that changes the learner.”
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux