On 11/22/2013 5:07 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:57:48 -0600 Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> > wrote: > >> On 11/21/2013 1:05 AM, John Williams wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 11/20/2013 8:46 PM, John Williams wrote: >>>>> For myself or any machines I managed for work that do not need high >>>>> IOPS, I would definitely choose triple- or quad-parity over RAID 51 or >>>>> similar schemes with arrays of 16 - 32 drives. >>>> >>>> You must see a week long rebuild as acceptable... >>> >>> It would not be a problem if it did take that long, since I would have >>> extra parity units as backup in case of a failure during a rebuild. >>> >>> But of course it would not take that long. Take, for example, a 24 x >>> 3TB triple-parity array (21+3) that has had two drive failures >>> (perhaps the rebuild started with one failure, but there was soon >>> another failure). I would expect the rebuild to take about a day. >> >> You're looking at today. We're discussing tomorrow's needs. Today's >> 6TB 3.5" drives have sustained average throughput of ~175MB/s. >> Tomorrow's 20TB drives will be lucky to do 300MB/s. As I said >> previously, at that rate a straight disk-disk copy of a 20TB drive takes >> 18.6 hours. This is what you get with RAID1/10/51. In the real world, >> rebuilding a failed drive in a 3P array of say 8 of these disks will >> likely take at least 3 times as long, 2 days 6 hours minimum, probably >> more. This may be perfectly acceptable to some, but probably not to all. > > Could you explain your logic here? Why do you think rebuilding parity > will take 3 times as long as rebuilding a copy? Can you measure that sort of > difference today?
I've not performed head-to-head timed rebuild tests of mirror vs parity RAIDs. I'm making the elapsed guess for parity RAIDs based on posts here over the past ~3 years, in which many users reported 16-24+ hour rebuild times for their fairly wide (12-16 1-2TB drive) RAID6 arrays. This is likely due to their chosen rebuild priority and concurrent user load during rebuild. Since this seems to be the norm, instead of giving 100% to the rebuild, I thought it prudent to take this into account, instead of the theoretical minimum rebuild time. > Presumably when we have 20TB drives we will also have more cores and quite > possibly dedicated co-processors which will make the CPU load less > significant. But (when) will we have the code to fully take advantage of these? It's nearly 2014 and we still don't have a working threaded write model for levels 5/6/10, though maybe soon. Multi-core mainstream x86 CPUs have been around for 8 years now, SMP and ccNUMA systems even longer. So the need has been there for a while. I'm strictly making an observation (possibly not fully accurate) here. I am not casting stones. I'm not a programmer and am thus unable to contribute code, only ideas and troubleshooting assistance for fellow users. Ergo I have no right/standing to complain about the rate of feature progress. I know that everyone hacking md is making the most of the time they have available. So again, not a complaint, just an observation. -- Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
