From: Sean Greenslade <sean@seangreenslade.com>
To: Psalle <psalleetsile@gmail.com>
Cc: Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: raid1 vs raid5
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 03:09:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160106080907.GA30773@wheatley.ludlow.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <568BEE3F.4060402@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:24:31PM +0100, Psalle wrote:
> Hello all and excuse me if this is a silly question. I looked around in the
> wiki and list archives but couldn't find any in-depth discussion about this:
>
> I just realized that, since raid1 in btrfs is special (meaning only two
> copies in different devices), the effect in terms of resilience achieved
> with raid1 and raid5 are the same: you can lose one drive and not lose data.
>
> So!, presuming that raid5 were at the same level of maturity, what would be
> the pros/cons of each mode?
This is true for "classic" RAID: assume you have 3x 1TB disks. RAID1
will give you 1.5TB, whereas RAID5 will give you 2TB.
RAID1 = 1/2 total disk space (assuming equally-sized disks)
RAID5 = (N-1)*single disk space (same assumption)
> As a corollary, I guess that if raid1 is considered a good compromise, then
> functional equivalents to raid6 and beyond could simply be implemented as
> "storing n copies in different devices", dropping any complex parity
> computations and making this mode entirely generic.
This is akin to what has been mentioned on the list earlier as "N-way
mirroring" and I agree that it will be very nice to have once
implemented. However it is not the same as RAID5/6 since the parity
schemes are used to get more usable storage than just simple mirroring
would allow for.
Thus, the main pro of RAID5/6 is more usable storage, and the main con
is more computational complexity (and thus more cpu requirements, slower
access time, more fragile error states, etc.)
> Since this seems pretty obvious, I'd welcome your insights on what are
> the things I'm missing, since it doesn't exist (and it isn't planned
> to be this way, AFAIK). I can foresee consistency difficulties, but
> that seems hardly insurmountable if its being done for raid1?
Fixing an inconsistency in RAID1 is much easier than RAID5/6. No math,
just checking csums. Fixing an inconsistency in RAID5/6 involves busting
out the parity math. This is why repairing RAID5/6 only became possible
in btrfs relatively recently. Generating the parity data was relatively
easy, but rebuilding missing data with it was a more difficult task.
--Sean
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-06 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-05 16:24 raid1 vs raid5 Psalle
2016-01-06 8:09 ` Sean Greenslade [this message]
2016-01-20 14:17 ` Psalle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160106080907.GA30773@wheatley.ludlow.local \
--to=sean@seangreenslade.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=psalleetsile@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).