From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Triple-parity raid6
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:05:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <it0apc$tj0$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DF3A27E.8080806@gmail.com>
On 11/06/11 19:14, Joe Landman wrote:
> A quick note of caution (and someone from Netapp, feel free to speak up).
>
> Netapp has a patent on triple parity raid (c.f.
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7640484.html). A quick look over this,
> suggests that the major innovation is the layout and computation which
> they simplified in a particular manner. That is, I don't think their
> patent covers triple parity RAID in general, but does cover their
> implementation, and the diagonal parity with anti-diagonal parity
> (effectively counter propagating or orthogonalized parity).
>
> I am not sure what this means from a coding sense, other than not to use
> their techniques without a license to do so. If Netapp wants to grant
> such a license, this would be good, but I suspect that it wouldn't be
> quite as simple as this.
>
> Just a note so that we don't encounter problems. I think its very
> possible to avoid their IP, as it would somewhat hard to claim ownership
> of the Galois Field math behind RAID calculations. They can (and do)
> claim a particular implementation and algorithm.
>
> [also not trying to open the patent on code wars here, just pointing out
> the current situation ]
>
>
I've read a little about diagonal parities - I can see some advantage in
their simplicity, but I think that they are a poor choice for raid.
Raid5+ already suffers from performance issues because you often have to
read a whole stripe at a time just to change a few blocks - with
diagonal parity, you'd have to read a whole 2-D set of stripes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-11 18:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-09 0:01 Triple-parity raid6 David Brown
2011-06-09 1:49 ` NeilBrown
2011-06-09 11:32 ` David Brown
2011-06-09 12:04 ` NeilBrown
2011-06-09 19:19 ` David Brown
2011-06-10 3:22 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-06-10 8:45 ` David Brown
2011-06-10 12:20 ` Christoph Dittmann
2011-06-10 14:28 ` David Brown
2011-06-11 10:13 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2011-06-11 11:51 ` David Brown
2011-06-11 13:18 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2011-06-11 14:53 ` David Brown
2011-06-11 15:05 ` Joe Landman
2011-06-11 16:31 ` David Brown
2011-06-11 16:57 ` Joe Landman
2011-06-12 9:05 ` David Brown
2011-06-11 17:14 ` Joe Landman
2011-06-11 18:05 ` David Brown [this message]
2011-06-10 9:03 ` David Brown
2011-06-10 13:56 ` Bill Davidsen
2011-06-09 22:42 ` David Brown
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='it0apc$tj0$1@dough.gmane.org' \
--to=david.brown@hesbynett.no \
--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).