Am 17.04.2012 09:58, schrieb David Brown: > Hi Alex, > > I've been playing around with triple-parity raid theory for a while. > It's been mainly for my own interest - it's fun to do some deeper maths > (I studied maths at university, but this is the first time I've done > serious group theory in the last 20 years), fun to resurrect my LaTeX > skills, and maybe it will be useful to the md raid developers. > > My current state is that I've got theory worked out and written up - not > just for triple parity, but for more parities as well. For some of it, > I've got Python code to test and verify the maths. It turns out that > triple parity can work well - but for quad parity the limit is 21 data > disks (using generators 2, 4, and 8), or up to 33 (using for example > 0x07, 0x35 and 0x8b as generators). Realistically, I think triple > parity is the limit for practical implementations. > > I haven't finished the paper - in particular, I haven't filled out the > simplifications of the triple parity work from more general matrix > forms. I also hope to work on implementation details for the > calculations. But maybe there is already enough to be of interest to > some people, such as yourself. > > <http://redhouse.homelinux.net/raid/> > > mvh., > > David > > > > On 17/04/2012 08:11, Alex wrote: >> Thanks to Billy Crook who pointed out this is the right place for my >> post. >> >> Adam Leventhal integrated triple-parity RAID into ZFS in 2009. The >> necessity of triple-parity RAID is described in detail in Adam >> Leventhal's >> article(http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/1/55741-triple-parity-raid-and-beyond/fulltext). >> >> Basically it is because hard drive capacity has doubled >> annually(Kryder's law) while hard drive throughput has improved far >> more modestly, the time it takes to recover a faulty hard disk in a >> double-parity RAID like RAID 6 might become so long(in 2010, it takes >> about 4 hours to recover a 1TB SAS hard disk at its full speed) that >> the remaining array(essentially a RAID 5 array, which has proven to be >> unsafe) might fail and cause data loss during recovery. Earlier this >> year, Ostler et >> al.(http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/full/ncomms1666.html) >> established a revolutionary way of writing magnetic substrate using a >> heat pulse instead of a traditional magnetic field, which may increase >> data throughput on a hard disk by 1000 times in the future. They >> estimated the commercial usage of this new technology would be advent >> in about 10 years. That said, within the next 10 years, having >> triple-parity RAID in a data integrity demanding environment is still >> highly desirable. >> >> Unfortunately, due to conflicts between CDDL license of Oracle and GNU >> license of Linux, ZFS and hence triple-parity RAID cannot be ported to >> Linux. As a die-hard follower of the open source community, I am NOT >> exactly pleased by this kind of drama. But instead of claiming the >> grape to be sour, I decided to grow my own. >> >> The work I am going to present here builds on top of that of Adam >> Leventhal(http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/vdev_raidz.c) >> >> and Peter Anvin(http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hpa/raid6.pdf). >> I will generalize Adam Leventhal's work using Peter Anvin's method, >> then pick another generator from the Galois field GF(2^8) to >> facilitate another triple-parity RAID algorithm that hopefully can be >> used by the part of open source community that is not CDDL compliant >> and beyond. System engineers who are not exactly familiar with Galois >> field theory may find themselves a great exposure for that in Peter >> Anvin's article. >> >> I will use the same notation as in Adam Leventhal's work: D_0, ... >> D_n-1 represents corresponding bytes in the n data disks in the array, >> addition + is bitwise XOR, multiplication * is multiplication in >> GF(2^8), multiplication in the power(for example,2(n-1) in g^2(n-1) >> below) on the other hand, is multiplication in modulo ring Z_255. >> >> (1) P = D_0 + D_1 + ... + D_n-2 + D_n-1 >> (2) Q = g^n-1 * D_0 + g^n-2 * D_1 + ... + g^1 * D_n-2 + D_n-1 >> = ((...((D_0) * g + D_1) * g + ...) * g + D_n-2) * g + D_n-1 >> (3) R = g^2(n-1) * D_0 + g^2(n-2) * D_1 + ... + g^2 * D_n-2 + D_n-1 >> = ((...((D_0) * g^2 + D_1) * g^2 + ...) * g^2 + D_n-2) * g^2 + >> D_n-1 >> >> P,Q,R are the definitions of the parity bytes, these are usually >> called P,Q,R syndromes in the literature. Adam Leventhal used >> generator {02} in the cyclic representation of Galois field GF(2^8), I >> instead use an arbitrary generator g in the definition of P,Q and R. >> For generator g, g^k is a generator if and only if k is relatively >> prime to 255. Since g^255 = 1, g^(-1) = g^254 is a generator for 254 >> is relatively prime to 255. g^(-1) is the generator I am going to use >> to optimize my triple-parity RAID algorithm. >> >> Now let's prove we can always recover from 3 or less disk failures, >> namely, we can always solve (1), (2), (3) for a unique solution if 3 >> or less of {P, Q, R, D_0, ... D_n-1} are unknowns. >> >> We start with the most difficult case, i.e., 3 of {D_0, ... D_n-1} are >> unknowns, or 3 data disks have failed and let's call them D_x, D_y and >> D_z. For (1), we move the constants on the right to the left and >> combine them with P and call the sum to be P_xyz, so (1) becomes >> >> (1)' P_xyz = D_x + D_y + D_z >> >> Similarly, (2) and (3) become >> >> (2)' Q_xyz = g^x * D_x + g^y * D_y + g^z * D_z >> (3)' R_xyz = g^2x * D_x + g^2y * D_y + g^2z * D_z >> >> From (1)', we have D_z = P_xyz + D_x + D_y since A + A = 0 in a Galois >> field. Substitute this into (2)' and (3)', and move the constants to >> the left and call them Q_xyz' and R_xyz', we got >> >> (2)'' Q_xyz' = (g^x + g^z) * D_x + (g^y + g^z) * D_y >> (3)'' R_xyz' = (g^2x + g^2z) * D_x + (g^2y + g^2z) * D_y >> >> Here comes the trick, multiply (2)'' by g^y + g^z, the coefficient for >> D_y becomes (g^y + g^z) * (g^y + g^z) = g^2y + g^y * g^z + g^z * g^y + >> g^2z = g^2y + g^2z(A + A = 0 again), then add it to (3)'' and move the >> constants to the left and call it R_xyz'', we have >> >> (3)''' R_xyz'' = [(g^x + g^z) * (g^y + g^z) + g^2x + g^2z] * D_x >> = [g^(x+y) + g^(x+z) + g^(z+y) + g^2z + g^2x +g^2z] * D_x >> = [g^(x+y) + g^(x+z) + g^(z+y) + g^2x] * D_x (A + A = >> 0 again) >> = [g^y * (g^x + g^z) + g^x *(g^x + g^z)] * D_x >> = (g^y + g^x) * (g^x + g^z) * D_x >> >> Now because x, y, z are distinct integers, if we assume 0<= x, y, z< >> n<= 255, then neither g^y + g^x nor g^x + g^z can be zero since g is >> a generator and we can solve for D_x from (3)'''. A similar argument >> can be applied to D_y's coefficient in (2)'' to solve for D_y and from >> (1)' we can solve for D_z. >> >> In a failure of 3 disks involving 1 or more parity disks, we may use >> the equations not involving a failed data disk to uniquely solve for >> unknows representing the failed data disk bytes, then use the rest of >> the equations to recalculate the failed parity disk bytes. >> >> In a failure involving only two data disks, we may use an argument >> similar to above and two of the three equations to uniquely solve for >> the unknowns(you might need to observe that g^2 is also a generator >> since 2 is relatively prime to 255), the only question is: does the >> solution satisfy the third equation? The answer is it has to. The >> reason is we originally(before the two data disks failed) have a >> solution for the two unknowns that satisfies all three equations, >> hence also satisfies the two we used to solve for the unknowns; but >> now we uniquely solve for the unknowns from those two equations, so >> they have to be the original values. >> >> The arguments for other cases are similar, but only easier. >> >> There is an important observation here: The Gauss-Jordan elimination >> in the proof above can be apply to Adam Leventhal's code although one >> has 3 equations, the other has n+3. And this observaton has two >> implications: >> >> 1) If we replace g with generator {02} in GF(2^8), we have proven that >> the algorithm used in Adam Leventhal's code is sound.(I am sure Adam >> Leventhal has his own proof, but as another guy with a math >> background, I am not convinced until I see it.) >> >> 2) For other generators in GF(2^8), we can use the same procedure in >> the algorithm of Adam Leventhal's code once the corresponding >> logarithm and powers tables are replaced, this enable us to reuse most >> of the code in Adam Leventhal's code. >> >> So much for the math, now we enter neverland of a system enggineer. >> Let's consider GF(2^8)'s another generator {02}^(-1) and try to >> optimize the calculation for the Q ad R syndromes. For this purpose, >> we use the second equality in (2) and (3). The addition is just >> bitewise XOR, what we need to optimize is the multiplication by >> {02}^(-1). Following the way in Peter Anvin's article, we found that >> multiplication is implemented by the following bitwise operations: >> >> (x * {02}^(-1))_7 = x_0 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_6 = x_7 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_5 = x_6 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_4 = x_5 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_3 = x_4 + x_0 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_2 = x_3 + x_0 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_1 = x_2 + x_0 >> (x * {02}^(-1))_0 = x_1 >> >> For 32 bit architecture, the C code optimizing it is as follows: >> >> uint32_t v vv; >> vv = (v>> 1)& 0x7f7f7f7f; >> vv ^= MASK(v)& 0x8e8e8e8e; >> >> uint32_t MASK(uint32_t v) >> { >> v&= 0x01010101; >> return (v<< 8) - v; >> } >> >> The code for 64 bit architecture is just a simple extension of this, >> or you may consult Adam Leventhal's code. >> >> For arbitrary multiplication in the Gauss-Jordan elimination of the >> recovery process, we use the rule: >> >> A * B = C<==> C = g^(log_g A + log_g B) >> A / B = C<==> C = g^(log_g A - log_g B) >> >> where log_g is the discrete logarithm and g = {02}^(-1). >> >> And the tables for discrete logarithm and powers of {02}^(-1) is as >> follows: >> >> Powers table: >> >> 0x01, 0x8e, 0x47, 0xad, 0xd8, 0x6c, 0x36, 0x1b, >> 0x83, 0xcf, 0xe9, 0xfa, 0x7d, 0xb0, 0x58, 0x2c, >> 0x16, 0x0b, 0x8b, 0xcb, 0xeb, 0xfb, 0xf3, 0xf7, >> 0xf5, 0xf4, 0x7a, 0x3d, 0x90, 0x48, 0x24, 0x12, >> 0x09, 0x8a, 0x45, 0xac, 0x56, 0x2b, 0x9b, 0xc3, >> 0xef, 0xf9, 0xf2, 0x79, 0xb2, 0x59, 0xa2, 0x51, >> 0xa6, 0x53, 0xa7, 0xdd, 0xe0, 0x70, 0x38, 0x1c, >> 0x0e, 0x07, 0x8d, 0xc8, 0x64, 0x32, 0x19, 0x82, >> 0x41, 0xae, 0x57, 0xa5, 0xdc, 0x6e, 0x37, 0x95, >> 0xc4, 0x62, 0x31, 0x96, 0x4b, 0xab, 0xdb, 0xe3, >> 0xff, 0xf1, 0xf6, 0x7b, 0xb3, 0xd7, 0xe5, 0xfc, >> 0x7e, 0x3f, 0x91, 0xc6, 0x63, 0xbf, 0xd1, 0xe6, >> 0x73, 0xb7, 0xd5, 0xe4, 0x72, 0x39, 0x92, 0x49, >> 0xaa, 0x55, 0xa4, 0x52, 0x29, 0x9a, 0x4d, 0xa8, >> 0x54, 0x2a, 0x15, 0x84, 0x42, 0x21, 0x9e, 0x4f, >> 0xa9, 0xda, 0x6d, 0xb8, 0x5c, 0x2e, 0x17, 0x85, >> 0xcc, 0x66, 0x33, 0x97, 0xc5, 0xec, 0x76, 0x3b, >> 0x93, 0xc7, 0xed, 0xf8, 0x7c, 0x3e, 0x1f, 0x81, >> 0xce, 0x67, 0xbd, 0xd0, 0x68, 0x34, 0x1a, 0x0d, >> 0x88, 0x44, 0x22, 0x11, 0x86, 0x43, 0xaf, 0xd9, >> 0xe2, 0x71, 0xb6, 0x5b, 0xa3, 0xdf, 0xe1, 0xfe, >> 0x7f, 0xb1, 0xd6, 0x6b, 0xbb, 0xd3, 0xe7, 0xfd, >> 0xf0, 0x78, 0x3c, 0x1e, 0x0f, 0x89, 0xca, 0x65, >> 0xbc, 0x5e, 0x2f, 0x99, 0xc2, 0x61, 0xbe, 0x5f, >> 0xa1, 0xde, 0x6f, 0xb9, 0xd2, 0x69, 0xba, 0x5d, >> 0xa0, 0x50, 0x28, 0x14, 0x0a, 0x05, 0x8c, 0x46, >> 0x23, 0x9f, 0xc1, 0xee, 0x77, 0xb5, 0xd4, 0x6a, >> 0x35, 0x94, 0x4a, 0x25, 0x9c, 0x4e, 0x27, 0x9d, >> 0xc0, 0x60, 0x30, 0x18, 0x0c, 0x06, 0x03, 0x8f, >> 0xc9, 0xea, 0x75, 0xb4, 0x5a, 0x2d, 0x98, 0x4c, >> 0x26, 0x13, 0x87, 0xcd, 0xe8, 0x74, 0x3a, 0x1d, >> 0x80, 0x40, 0x20, 0x10, 0x08, 0x04, 0x02, 0x01 >> >> Log table: >> >> 0x00, 0x00, 0xfe, 0xe6, 0xfd, 0xcd, 0xe5, 0x39, >> 0xfc, 0x20, 0xcc, 0x11, 0xe4, 0x97, 0x38, 0xb4, >> 0xfb, 0x9b, 0x1f, 0xf1, 0xcb, 0x72, 0x10, 0x7e, >> 0xe3, 0x3e, 0x96, 0x07, 0x37, 0xf7, 0xb3, 0x8e, >> 0xfa, 0x75, 0x9a, 0xd0, 0x1e, 0xdb, 0xf0, 0xde, >> 0xca, 0x6c, 0x71, 0x25, 0x0f, 0xed, 0x7d, 0xba, >> 0xe2, 0x4a, 0x3d, 0x82, 0x95, 0xd8, 0x06, 0x46, >> 0x36, 0x65, 0xf6, 0x87, 0xb2, 0x1b, 0x8d, 0x59, >> 0xf9, 0x40, 0x74, 0x9d, 0x99, 0x22, 0xcf, 0x02, >> 0x1d, 0x67, 0xda, 0x4c, 0xef, 0x6e, 0xdd, 0x77, >> 0xc9, 0x2f, 0x6b, 0x31, 0x70, 0x69, 0x24, 0x42, >> 0x0e, 0x2d, 0xec, 0xa3, 0x7c, 0xc7, 0xb9, 0xbf, >> 0xe1, 0xbd, 0x49, 0x5c, 0x3c, 0xb7, 0x81, 0x91, >> 0x94, 0xc5, 0xd7, 0xab, 0x05, 0x7a, 0x45, 0xc2, >> 0x35, 0xa1, 0x64, 0x60, 0xf5, 0xea, 0x86, 0xd4, >> 0xb1, 0x2b, 0x1a, 0x53, 0x8c, 0x0c, 0x58, 0xa8, >> 0xf8, 0x8f, 0x3f, 0x08, 0x73, 0x7f, 0x9c, 0xf2, >> 0x98, 0xb5, 0x21, 0x12, 0xce, 0x3a, 0x01, 0xe7, >> 0x1c, 0x5a, 0x66, 0x88, 0xd9, 0x47, 0x4b, 0x83, >> 0xee, 0xbb, 0x6d, 0x26, 0xdc, 0xdf, 0x76, 0xd1, >> 0xc8, 0xc0, 0x2e, 0xa4, 0x6a, 0x43, 0x30, 0x32, >> 0x6f, 0x78, 0x68, 0x4d, 0x23, 0x03, 0x41, 0x9e, >> 0x0d, 0xa9, 0x2c, 0x54, 0xeb, 0xd5, 0xa2, 0x61, >> 0x7b, 0xc3, 0xc6, 0xac, 0xb8, 0x92, 0xbe, 0x5d, >> 0xe0, 0xd2, 0xbc, 0x27, 0x48, 0x84, 0x5b, 0x89, >> 0x3b, 0xe8, 0xb6, 0x13, 0x80, 0xf3, 0x90, 0x09, >> 0x93, 0x5e, 0xc4, 0xad, 0xd6, 0x62, 0xaa, 0x55, >> 0x04, 0x9f, 0x79, 0x4e, 0x44, 0x33, 0xc1, 0xa5, >> 0x34, 0xa6, 0xa0, 0x4f, 0x63, 0x56, 0x5f, 0xae, >> 0xf4, 0x0a, 0xe9, 0x14, 0x85, 0x8a, 0xd3, 0x28, >> 0xb0, 0x51, 0x2a, 0x16, 0x19, 0x18, 0x52, 0x17, >> 0x8b, 0x29, 0x0b, 0x15, 0x57, 0xaf, 0xa7, 0x50 >> >> The originally purpose of this work is to enable Linux to have >> triple-parity RAID, but I guess it is all right for the rest of the >> open source community to use it too. If you are not sure about your >> situation or you'd rather talk to me in private about other issues, >> please contact me at: creamyfish@xxxxxxxxx >> -- >> 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 >> > > > -- > 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 Hi Alex and David, please keep up the work on this topic. This is great stuff. Extreme mathematics put to use. At the moment I suggest all my customers to give one redundancy to four distinct disks in a raid. For larger RAIDs this gets expensive at times and one has to use RAID60-combinations. If we could use RAID7 (will it be called that?) or RAID70 we could use more data disks, as the dropout-probability moves. I guess when using RAID7 it'd be safe enough to have a RAID of 16 data-disks... So please allow me to thank you very much for your efforts! Grettings, Stefan -- 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
