On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 02:01:06 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Has anyone considered triple-parity raid6 ? As far as I can see, it > should not be significantly harder than normal raid6 - either to > implement, or for the processor at run-time. Once you have the GF(2â) > field arithmetic in place for raid6, it's just a matter of making > another parity block in the same way but using a different generator: > > P = D_0 + D_1 + D_2 + .. + D_(n.1) > Q = D_0 + g.D_1 + gÂ.D_2 + .. + g^(n-1).D_(n.1) > R = D_0 + h.D_1 + hÂ.D_2 + .. + h^(n-1).D_(n.1) > > The raid6 implementation in mdraid uses g = 0x02 to generate the second > parity (based on "The mathematics of RAID-6" - I haven't checked the > source code). You can make a third parity using h = 0x04 and then get a > redundancy of 3 disks. (Note - I haven't yet confirmed that this is > valid for more than 100 data disks - I need to make my checker program > more efficient first.) > > Rebuilding a disk, or running in degraded mode, is just an obvious > extension to the current raid6 algorithms. If you are missing three > data blocks, the maths looks hard to start with - but if you express the > equations as a set of linear equations and use standard matrix inversion > techniques, it should not be hard to implement. You only need to do > this inversion once when you find that one or more disks have failed - > then you pre-compute the multiplication tables in the same way as is > done for raid6 today. > > In normal use, calculating the R parity is no more demanding than > calculating the Q parity. And most rebuilds or degraded situations will > only involve a single disk, and the data can thus be re-constructed > using the P parity just like raid5 or two-parity raid6. > > > I'm sure there are situations where triple-parity raid6 would be > appealing - it has already been implemented in ZFS, and it is only a > matter of time before two-parity raid6 has a real probability of hitting > an unrecoverable read error during a rebuild. > > > And of course, there is no particular reason to stop at three parity > blocks - the maths can easily be generalised. 1, 2, 4 and 8 can be used > as generators for quad-parity (checked up to 60 disks), and adding 16 > gives you quintuple parity (checked up to 30 disks) - but that's maybe > getting a bit paranoid. > > > ref.: > > <http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hpa/raid6.pdf> > <http://blogs.oracle.com/ahl/entry/acm_triple_parity_raid> > <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1670144> > <http://blogs.oracle.com/ahl/entry/triple_parity_raid_z> > -ENOPATCH :-) I have a series of patches nearly ready which removes a lot of the remaining duplication in raid5.c between raid5 and raid6 paths. So there will be relative few places where RAID5 and RAID6 do different things - only the places where they *must* do different things. After that, adding a new level or layout which has 'max_degraded == 3' would be quite easy. The most difficult part would be the enhancements to libraid6 to generate the new 'syndrome', and to handle the different recovery possibilities. So if you're not otherwise busy this weekend, a patch would be nice :-) Thanks, NeilBrown -- 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
