From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Triple parity and beyond Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:10:11 -0800 Message-ID: <528D0913.1070604@zytor.com> References: <528A90B7.5010905@zytor.com> <528AA1EB.3010909@zytor.com> <528BCA2D.5010500@redhat.com> <73BEB41F-0FAC-4108-BEA9-DB6D921F6F55@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrea Mazzoleni , James Plank Cc: Ric Wheeler , Linux RAID Mailing List , Btrfs BTRFS , David Brown , David Smith List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 11/20/2013 11:05 AM, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote: > > For the first row with j=0, I use xi = 2^-i and y0 = 0, that results in: > How can xi = 2^-i if x is supposed to be constant? That doesn't mean that your approach isn't valid, of course, but it might not be a Cauchy matrix and thus needs additional analysis. > row j=0 -> 1/(xi+y0) = 1/(2^-i + 0) = 2^i (RAID-6 coefficients) > > For the next rows with j>0, I use yj = 2^j, resulting in: > > rows j>0 -> 1/(xi+yj) = 1/(2^-i + 2^j) Even more so here... 2^-i and 2^j don't seem to be of the form xi and yj respectively. -hpa