From: Paul Clements <Paul.Clements@SteelEye.com>
To: Stephan van Hienen <raid@a2000.nu>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: raid5 parity algorithm
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:56:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E5E8982.53D437CB@SteelEye.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.53.0302272238300.20334@ddx.a2000.nu
Stephan van Hienen wrote:
>
> Options are: left-asymmetric, left-symmetric, right-asymmetric,
> right-symmetric, la, ra, ls, rs.
> The default is left-symmetric.
>
> What is the difference between this ?
> and why do i want to use anything else than the default ?
Hi Stephan,
I'm forwarding a message that I posted to linux-kernel a little while
back...someone else had asked some very similar questions...I hope this
helps...
--
Paul
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:47:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Clements <kernel@steeleye.com>
Reply-To: Paul.Clements@steeleye.com
To: Ezra Nugroho <ezran@goshen.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: raid 5 algorithm docs
On 16 Jan 2003, Ezra Nugroho wrote:
> I don't know if linux-raid mailing list is still active, the archive
> sites look very old...
Yes, linux-raid is still alive and kicking...
it's at: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> Raidtab's man page tells about left/right (a)synchronous algorithm, but
> doesn't tell how they differ.
I haven't seen much documentation either, but here's what I got from
looking at the code (BTW, the relevant section of code is
raid5.c:raid5_compute_sector(), if you're curious):
Basically, the left/right refers to how the parity information is laid
out and the symmetric/asymmetric refers to how the data is laid out.
The "left" algorithms start with parity on the last disk, moving the
parity one disk closer to the first disk for each stripe (wrapping
as necessary). The "right" algorithms do just the opposite, starting
with parity on the first disk, moving it one disk closer to the last
disk for each stripe (wrapping as necessary).
The "asymmetric" algorithms place the data blocks for a given stripe in
simple sequential order, skipping over the parity block as necessary
and always starting with the first data block of a stripe on the
first disk. The "symmetric" algorithms differ from this in that they
do not always place the first block of a stripe on the first disk,
but continue to lay out the data blocks in sequential disk order,
simply wrapping back to the first disk when it's necessary.
So the symmetric algorithms tend to give better performance on large
sequential reads, for example, since the actual disk reads are
evenly spread across all disks.
There's a pretty good diagram of the left-symmetric disk layout here:
www.pdl.cmu.edu/PDL-FTP/Declustering/ASPLOS.ps (see figure 2-1)
--
Paul Clements
Paul.Clements@SteelEye.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-27 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-27 21:39 raid5 parity algorithm Stephan van Hienen
2003-02-27 21:56 ` Paul Clements [this message]
2003-02-28 5:46 ` Peter L. Ashford
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=3E5E8982.53D437CB@SteelEye.com \
--to=paul.clements@steeleye.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raid@a2000.nu \
/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).