Messages in this thread | | | From | Bernd Eckenfels <> | Subject | Re: Software RAID 5 and crashes | Date | Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:08:43 +0200 |
| |
In article <410CF7AA.2020604@baldauf.org> you wrote: > Unfortunately, it still does not make me satisfied, because: The
IMHO the current Raid5 implementation can be better in terms of crash recovery, BUT one should not forget that RAID5 is simply pretty bad even if ideally coded with ordered write and transaction sequence numbers. Therefore it is perhaps better to spend more time on alternatives or at least in communicating the inherent problems of raid5 to the users which want more (like you seem to need?)
> * <>Example 0: s3,s2,s1 are written to disk, while s0 is not written > * Example 1: s0,s1,s2 are written to disk, while s3 is not written
One has to state clearly state that the failure to commit raid stripes in a crash result in guranteed data loss even when the data is written redundant. This is one of the raid5 problems, and it is even worse in a degregated scenario.
> If we now consider, that for each disk (as member of a RAID 5), there > are parity stripes and there are data stripes. Doesn't it make sense to > prefer data blocks over partiy blocks when writing, just to get more > cases of "example 1" against "example 0" than without this preference?
I guess it depends on what "prefer" mean? Do you think about write ordering with a performance impact or about some minor tweaking with possibly no use (ie. because sorting the requests will be reordered in the controller and device anyway)
> One could even imagine to intensionally postpone the parity block > writing for some time in favour of peak throughput.
That would only help, if you defer the decision when the data is stable to that delayed time, which is for sure a performance killer.
> The RAID 5 device > looses its rendundancy for some bounded time at a bounded region of its > space, but this may be acceptable for certain applications, I think.
Well, I cant imagine applications which are sensitive to losing random file appends without a transaction protocol, but are not sensitive to degregaded redundancy?
BTW: I dont think hardware raid5 of any vendor performs much better?
Greetings Bernd -- eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/ Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/ - 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/
| |