Re: possibly silly question (raid failover)

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

 



On Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 05:32:17 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Robin Hill wrote:
> > On Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 04:13:26 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >
> >> David Brown wrote:
> >>> No, md RAID10 does /not/ offer more redundancy than RAID1.  You are
> >>> right that md RAID10 offers more than RAID1 (or traditional RAID0 over
> >>> RAID1 sets) - but it is a convenience and performance benefit, not a
> >>> redundancy benefit.  In particular, it lets you build RAID10 from any
> >>> number of disks, not just two.  And it lets you stripe over all disks,
> >>> improving performance for some loads (though not /all/ loads - if you
> >>> have lots of concurrent small reads, you may be faster using plain
> >>> RAID1).
> >> wasn't suggesting that it does - just that it does things differently
> >> than normal raid 1+0 - for example, by doing mirroring and striping as a
> >> unitary operation, it works across odd number of drives - it also (I
> >> think) allows for more than 2 copies of a block (not completely clear
> >> how many copies of a block would be made if you specified a 16 drive
> >> array) - sort of what I'm wondering here
> >>
> > By default it'll make 2 copies, regardless how many devices are in the
> > array. You can specify how many copies you want though, so -n3 will give
> > you a near configuration with 3 copies, -n4 for four copies, etc.
> >
> >
> cool, so with 16 drives, and say -n6 or -n8, and a far configuration - 
> that gives a pretty good level of resistance to multi-disk failures, as 
> well as an entire node failure (taking out 4 drives)
> 
Sorry, my mistake - it should be -p n3, or -p n4. You'll want -p f6/-p
f8 to get a far configuration though, but yes, that should give good
redundancy against a single node failure.

> which then leaves the question of whether the md driver, itself, can be 
> failed over from one node to another
> 
I don't see why not. You'll probably need to force assembly though, as
it's likely the devices will be slightly out-of-synch after the node
failure.

Cheers,
    Robin
-- 
     ___        
    ( ' }     |       Robin Hill        <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
   / / )      | Little Jim says ....                            |
  // !!       |      "He fallen in de water !!"                 |

Attachment: pgpIzkXcwPff9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[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