Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758202AbXFPONA (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:13:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756205AbXFPOMv (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:12:51 -0400 Received: from animx.eu.org ([216.98.75.249]:52965 "EHLO animx.eu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755702AbXFPOMv (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:12:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:57 -0400 From: Wakko Warner To: Neil Brown Cc: david@lang.hm, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: limits on raid Message-ID: <20070616140857.GA4206@animx.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Neil Brown , david@lang.hm, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org References: <18034.479.256870.600360@notabene.brown> <18034.3676.477575.490448@notabene.brown> <20070616020320.GB2002@animx.eu.org> <18035.23867.576212.859440@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18035.23867.576212.859440@notabene.brown> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1759 Lines: 42 Neil Brown wrote: > On Friday June 15, wakko@animx.eu.org wrote: > > > As I understand the way > > raid works, when you write a block to the array, it will have to read all > > the other blocks in the stripe and recalculate the parity and write it out. > > Your understanding is incomplete. > For raid5 on an array with more than 3 drive, if you attempt to write > a single block, it will: > > - read the current value of the block, and the parity block. > - "subtract" the old value of the block from the parity, and "add" > the new value. > - write out the new data and the new parity. > > If the parity was wrong before, it will still be wrong. If you then > lose a drive, you lose your data. I see, I didn't know that the MD's raid5 did this. > And why is it such a big deal anyway? The initial resync doesn't stop > you from using the array. I guess if you wanted to put an array into > production instantly and couldn't afford any slowdown due to resync, > then you might want to skip the initial resync.... but is that really > likely? When I've had an unclean shutdown on one of my systems (10x 50gb raid5) it's always slowed the system down when booting up. Quite significantly I must say. I wait until I can login and change the rebuild max speed to slow it down while I'm using it. But that is another thing. Thanks for the clarification on raid5. -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals Got Gas??? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/