From: "Mathias Burén" <mathias.buren@gmail.com>
To: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
Cc: Linux-RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Growing 6 HDD RAID5 to 7 HDD RAID6
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:05:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=1niLpTqtGRK-GUW5QhQ1U=nuUuA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinAUbMdh=FE8s9Qp6QJyfgp_pvCpA@mail.gmail.com>
On 22 April 2011 10:39, Mathias Burén <mathias.buren@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 April 2011 12:44, John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk> wrote:
>> (Subject line amended by me :-)
>>
>> On 12/04/2011 17:56, Mathias Burén wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I'm approaching over 6.5TB of data, and with an array this large I'd
>>> like to migrate to RAID6 for a bit more safety. I'm just checking if I
>>> understand this correctly, this is how to do it:
>>>
>>> * Add a HDD to the array as a hot spare:
>>> mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdh1
>>>
>>> * Migrate the array to RAID6:
>>> mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --raid-devices 7 --level 6
>>
>> You will need a --backup-file to do this, on another device. Since you are
>> keeping the same number of data discs before and after the reshape, the
>> backup file will be needed throughout the reshape, so the reshape will take
>> perhaps twice as long as a grow or shrink. If your backup-file is on the
>> same disc(s) as md0 is (e.g. on another partition or array made up of other
>> partitions on the same disc(s)), it will take way longer (gazillions of
>> seeks), so I'd recommend a separate drive or if you have one a small SSD for
>> the backup file.
>>
>> Doing the above with --layout=preserve will save you doing the reshape so
>> you won't need the backup file, but there will still be an initial sync of
>> the Q parity, and the layout will be RAID4-alike with all the Q parity on
>> one drive so it's possible its performance will be RAID4-alike too i.e.
>> small writes never faster than the parity drive. Having said that, streamed
>> writes can still potentially go as fast as your 5 data discs, as per your
>> RAID5. In practice, I'd be surprised if it was faster than about twice the
>> speed of a single drive (the same as your current RAID5), and as Neil Brown
>> notes in his reply, RAID6 doesn't currently have the read-modify-write
>> optimisation for small writes so small write performance is liable to be
>> even poorer than your RAID5 in either layout.
>>
>> You will never lose any redundancy in either of the above, but you won't
>> gain RAID6 double redundancy until the reshape (or Q-drive sync with
>> --layout=preserve) has completed - just the same as if you were replacing a
>> dead drive in an existing RAID6.
>>
>> Hope the above helps!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the replies. Allright, here we go;
>
> $ mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --bitmap=none
> $ mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sde1
> $ mdadm --grow /dev/md0 --verbose --layout=preserve --raid-devices 7
> --level 6 --backup-file=/root/md-raid5-to-raid6-backupfile.bin
> mdadm: level of /dev/md0 changed to raid6
>
> $ cat /proc/mdstat
>
> Fri Apr
> 22 10:37:44 2011
>
> Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
> md0 : active raid6 sde1[7] sdg1[0] sdh1[6] sdf1[5] sdc1[3] sdd1[4] sdb1[1]
> 9751756800 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 18
> [7/6] [UUUUUU_]
> [>....................] reshape = 0.0% (224768/1950351360)
> finish=8358.5min speed=3888K/sec
>
> unused devices: <none>
>
> And in dmesg:
>
>
> --- level:6 rd:7 wd:6
> disk 0, o:1, dev:sdg1
> disk 1, o:1, dev:sdb1
> disk 2, o:1, dev:sdd1
> disk 3, o:1, dev:sdc1
> disk 4, o:1, dev:sdf1
> disk 5, o:1, dev:sdh1
> RAID conf printout:
> --- level:6 rd:7 wd:6
> disk 0, o:1, dev:sdg1
> disk 1, o:1, dev:sdb1
> disk 2, o:1, dev:sdd1
> disk 3, o:1, dev:sdc1
> disk 4, o:1, dev:sdf1
> disk 5, o:1, dev:sdh1
> disk 6, o:1, dev:sde1
> md: reshape of RAID array md0
> md: minimum _guaranteed_ speed: 1000 KB/sec/disk.
> md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than
> 200000 KB/sec) for reshape.
> md: using 128k window, over a total of 1950351360 blocks.
>
> IIRC there's a way to speed up the migration, by using a larger cache
> value somewhere, no?
>
> Thanks,
> Mathias
>
Increasing stripe cache on the md device from 1027 to 32k or 16k
didn't make a difference, still around 3800KB/s reshape. Oh well,
we'll see if it's still alive in 5.5 days!
Cheers,
--
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:[~2011-04-22 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-12 16:56 Growing 6 HDD RAID5 to 7 HDD RAID5 Mathias Burén
2011-04-12 17:14 ` Roman Mamedov
2011-04-12 17:21 ` Mathias Burén
2011-04-12 18:22 ` Roman Mamedov
2011-04-12 21:15 ` NeilBrown
2011-04-12 21:53 ` Mathias Burén
2011-04-13 11:44 ` Growing 6 HDD RAID5 to 7 HDD RAID6 John Robinson
2011-04-22 9:39 ` Mathias Burén
2011-04-22 10:05 ` Mathias Burén [this message]
2011-04-29 22:45 ` Mathias Burén
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='BANLkTi=1niLpTqtGRK-GUW5QhQ1U=nuUuA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mathias.buren@gmail.com \
--cc=john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/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).