Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 04:24:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 04:24:29 -0400 Received: from [62.70.58.70] ([62.70.58.70]:14800 "EHLO mail.pronto.tv") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 04:24:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:24:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk X-X-Sender: To: Derek Vadala cc: , , Tedd Hansen , Christian Vik , Lars Christian Nygaard Subject: Re: RAID-6 support in kernel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > You can always fake this effect by combining two 8-disk RAID-5s into a > RAID-0. It's not technically RAID-6, but can withstand a 2-disk failure, > although not _any_ 2-disk failure. However, it's my understanding that > RAID-6 cannot withstand _any_ two disk failure either (see the above > thread). It'll waste 9 drives, giving me a total capacity of 7n instead of 14n. And, by definition, RAID-6 _can_ withstand _any_ two-drive failure. > I also suspect that the use of dual RAID-5s combined with the CPU overhead > of ATA will kill most systems under any kind of load. For that matter, the > 2x parity hit from RAID-6 probably wouldn't make you CPU too happy either, > even if there was a kernel driver that implemented it. With a 1500MHz Athlon on a typical file server where there's not much writes, the CPU is sitting there chrunching RC5-64 som 99,95 % of the time. I don't think it'll make much differnce with today's CPUs roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. - 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/