Late reply. This one got lost in the flurry of activity...
On 11/22/2013 7:24 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/11/13 09:38, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> For example, with 20 disks at 1 TB each, you can have:
>>
...
>&
On 11/24/2013 5:53 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2013 11:14 PM, John Williams wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> But I, and a number of other people I have talked to or corr
On 11/23/2013 11:19 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I have always surmised that the culprit is rotational latency, because
>> we're not able to get a real sector-by-sector streaming read from each
>> drive. If even only one dis
On 11/23/2013 11:14 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Parity array rebuilds are read-modify-write operations. The main
>> difference from normal operation RMWs is that the write is always to the
>> same disk. As long
On 11/23/2013 1:12 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:34:41 -0800 John Williams
>> Even a single 8x PCIe 3.0 card has potentially over 7GB/s of bandwidth.
>>
>> Bottom line is that IO bandwidth is not a problem for a system with
>> prudently chosen hardware.
Quite right.
>> More like
On 11/22/2013 5:07 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:57:48 -0600 Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2013 1:05 AM, John Williams wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2013 8:46 PM, John Wil
On 11/22/2013 9:01 AM, John Williams wrote:
> I see no advantage of RAID 15, and several disadvantages.
Of course not, just as I sated previously.
On 11/22/2013 2:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Parity users who currently shun RAID 10 for this reason will also
> shun this "RAID 1
On 11/22/2013 2:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
...
>> I don't see that there needs to be any changes to the existing md code
>> to make raid15 work - it is merely a raid 5 made from a set of raid1
>> pairs
On 11/21/2013 5:38 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> He wrote that article in late 2009. It seems pretty clear he wasn't
>> looking 10 years forward to 20TB drives, where the minimum mirror
>> rebuild time will be ~18
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
> For example, with 20 disks at 1 TB each, you can have:
All correct, and these are maximum redundancies.
Maximum:
> raid5 = 19TB, 1 disk redundancy
> raid6 = 18TB, 2 disk redundancy
> raid6.3 = 17TB, 3 disk redundancy
> raid6.4 = 16TB, 4 disk redundanc
Hi David,
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/11/13 02:28, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
...
>> WRT rebuild times, once drives hit 20TB we're looking at 18 hours just
>> to mirror a drive at full streaming bandwidth, assuming 300MB/s
>> average--and that is probab
On 11/21/2013 2:08 AM, joystick wrote:
> On 21/11/2013 02:28, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
...
>> WRT rebuild times, once drives hit 20TB we're looking at 18 hours just
>> to mirror a drive at full streaming bandwidth, assuming 300MB/s
>> average--and that is probably being kind
On 11/21/2013 1:05 AM, John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner
> 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-
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...
> No need t
On 11/20/2013 12:44 PM, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:
> Yes. There are still AMD CPUs sold without SSSE3. Most notably Athlon.
> Instead, Intel is providing SSSE3 from the Core 2 Duo.
I hate branding discontinuity, due to the resulting confusion...
Athlon, Athlon64, Athlon64 X2, Athlon X2 (K10), Athlo
On 11/20/2013 10:16 AM, James Plank wrote:
> Hi all -- no real comments, except as I mentioned to Ric, my tutorial
> in FAST last February presents Reed-Solomon coding with Cauchy
> matrices, and then makes special note of the common pitfall of
> assuming that you can append a Vandermonde matrix to
16 matches
Mail list logo
