From: Jaromir Capik <jcapik@redhat.com>
To: Roberto Spadim <roberto@spadim.com.br>
Cc: stan@hardwarefreak.com, Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.de>
Subject: Re: [RFE] Please, add optional RAID1 feature (= chunk checksums) to make it more robust
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:09:00 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1033621438.2057828.1343142540202.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABYL=Tq0w150QMcehdsScUfDfCD2tGFeuROjWjwsepy1rRXk_w@mail.gmail.com>
> yeah, i think this too, but IMO Jamiro exposed a specific scenario,
> let´s get back to it and after check a generic scenario,
> he is using small computers (i don´t know if it´s ARM or X86) with
> space to only 2 disks (i told him to use raid5 or raid6 because the
> checksums but he don´t have space for >=3 disks in computer case,
> maybe if we could run raid5 with 2 disks could help... or 1 disk...
> just a idiot idea, but this could help...)
I believe, that Piergiorgio meant something else. It was about
creation of a high number of small partitions on two physical
drives and then build a RAID6 array on top of them. But that's
really a bit overkill :]
> i don´t know the real scenario, i think he will not use it in
> 100partitions, maybe 4 or 5 partitions, and performance to be a
> second
> option, security is priority here
> in the implementation of this new layer (maybe like LINEAR, MULTIPATH
> or another not raid level) we could focus on security and after
> performace
>
> just some ideas...
>
> 2012/7/23 Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.de>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > actually, what you would like to do is already
> > possible, albeit it will kill the performance
> > of a rotating, mechanical, HDD.
> > With SSD might work better.
> >
> > If you take an HDD and partition it, let's say
> > with 100 partitions (GPT will be required),
> > then you can build a RAID-6 using this 100
> > partitions, having a redundancy of 2%.
> > Taking two, or more, of such configured RAID-6,
> > it will be possible to build (with them) a
> > RAID-1 (or else).
> >
> > If a check of this RAID-1 returns mismatches,
> > it will be possible to check the single devices
> > and find out which is not OK.
> > With RAID-6 (per device), and a bit of luck, it
> > will be possible to fix it directly.
> >
> > Of course a lot of variables are tunable here.
> > For example the number of partitions, the chunk
> > size, or even the fact that with X partitions
> > it could be possible to build more than one RAID-6,
> > increasing the effective redundancy.
> >
> > All with the performance price I mentioned at the
> > beginning.
> >
> > bye,
> >
> > --
> >
> > piergiorgio
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> > linux-raid" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> Roberto Spadim
> Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-24 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1082734092.338339.1342995087426.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
2012-07-23 4:29 ` [RFE] Please, add optional RAID1 feature (= chunk checksums) to make it more robust Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-23 9:34 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-23 10:53 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-23 17:03 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-07-23 18:24 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-23 21:31 ` Drew
2012-07-23 21:42 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-24 4:42 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-24 12:51 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-27 6:06 ` Adam Goryachev
2012-07-27 13:42 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-24 15:09 ` Jaromir Capik [this message]
[not found] <1897705147.341625.1342995720661.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
2012-07-23 4:30 ` Stan Hoeppner
[not found] <17025a94-1999-4619-b23d-7460946c2f85@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
2012-07-18 11:01 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-18 11:13 ` Mathias Burén
2012-07-18 12:42 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-18 11:15 ` NeilBrown
2012-07-18 13:04 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-19 3:48 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-20 12:53 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-20 18:24 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-20 18:30 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-20 20:07 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-20 20:21 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-20 20:44 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-20 20:59 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-21 3:58 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-07-18 11:49 ` keld
2012-07-18 13:08 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-18 16:08 ` Roberto Spadim
2012-07-20 10:35 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-18 21:02 ` keld
2012-07-18 16:28 ` Asdo
2012-07-20 11:07 ` Jaromir Capik
2012-07-20 11:14 ` Oliver Schinagl
2012-07-20 11:28 ` Jaromir Capik
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=1033621438.2057828.1343142540202.JavaMail.root@redhat.com \
--to=jcapik@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.de \
--cc=roberto@spadim.com.br \
--cc=stan@hardwarefreak.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).