Re: Triple parity and beyond

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

 



I'm not going to claim any expert status on this discussion (the
theory makes my head spin) but I will say I agree with Andrea as far
as prefering his implementation for triple parity and beyond.

PSHUFB has been around the intel platform since the Core2 introduced
it as part of SSSE3 back in Q1 2006. The generation of Intel based
servers that ran pre-Core Xeons are long in the tooth and this is a
value judgement but if your data is big enough you need triple parity,
you probably shouldn't be running it from an ten year old platform.

But that's just me. :-)


-- 
Drew

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
--Marie Curie

"This started out as a hobby and spun horribly out of control."
-Unknown
--
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