Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
> hi all
>
> I'n working on server setup with some 16 disks in RAID-5; one of them a
> spare. After a little reading, I find myself longing for support for
> RAID-6 support in kernel, giving the opportunity to allow for two failed
> drives without a chrash (see links about RAID-6 below if interested).
>
> I am aware of that not all kernel hackers like such configurations, and
> that some will rather see small RAID-configurations connected with VLM.
> I beleive there is a reason for using RAID-6, and RAID-controller vendors
> (such as Compaq) are already using them, so why shouldn't linux do so
> also? With a high number of cheap IDE drives, the chance of one failing is
> quite high, so why not RAID-6? At least for a system doing most reads...
>
> thanks
>
> roy
>
> RAID-6 layout: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_06.html
If it is supposed to survive two arbitrary disk failures something is
wrong with that figure. They store 12 logical sectors in 20 physical
sectors across 4 drives. With two lost disks there are 10 physical
sectors left from which we want to reconstruct 12 logical sectors.
That is impossible.
OTOH it is possible to construct a system with optimal capacity and
ability to survive any chosen number of disk failures. This can be
done using either a Reed-Soloman code or Lagrange interpolation of
polynomials over a finite field.
However I guess those techniques would be inefficient in software.
-- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet. For sending spam use mailto:razor-report@daimi.au.dk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST