Re: linux raid vs hw raid

Date	2011-04-09 13:14 +0200
From	David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	Re: linux raid vs hw raid
References	(4 earlier) <tllsp6ltftsq6ufp048hcc4ivufupgbmki@4ax.com> <FqSdnWp-6szqTAPQnZ2dnUVZ8hednZ2d@lyse.net> <4ql378xm3b.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> <hk7vp6lanc5k2b7fahvhcnscaolfaf9nqm@4ax.com> <kok478x7tj.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Message-ID	<sJGdnWu4CssWoj3QnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d@lyse.net> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/04/11 02:10, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2011-04-08, Grant<omg@grrr.id.au>  wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 08:22:12 -0700, Keith Keller<kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>  wrote:
>>
>> What's RAID50, I guess two mirrored RAID5s?  RAID6 seems more efficient?
>
> RAID50 is two striped RAID5s.  RAID51 would be a mirror of RAID5s.
> RAID6 is an improvement over RAID50, but older hardware RAID controllers
> (like the one I have) don't support RAID6.
>

RAID50 has some advantages in terms of scalability and recovery, as 
compared to a single wide RAID6 - quite aside from any limitations that 
hardware controllers might have.

One is that it can be easier to manage a hierarchical setup if you have 
a lot of drives.  You might have a number of independent RAID5 boxes, 
and stripe them together as RAID0.  Or you could have more than one RAID 
controller card in the same box, each managing a RAID5 array, with RAID0 
handled in software.

There is also the issue of rebuilding.  With a RAID5, a rebuild requires 
continuous reading of all data in all the other drives in the array 
(RAID6 is only slightly less bad).  If you have your array split into 
separate RAID5 arrays, then there will be less disk work during the rebuild.

A RAID50 will also be more efficient for partial stripe writes than a 
single wide RAID5 or RAID6, since you don't have to read in so many 
blocks to calculate the parity.  With very wide arrays, a higher 
proportion of your writes will be partial stripes, so this can be a 
bottleneck to scalability.

Of course, RAID50 doesn't give you any better worst-case redundancy than 
RAID5 otherwise would - a second disk failure during a rebuild means you 
lose everything.  RAID6 gives you that extra redundancy.  However, 
RAID50 gives you average-case better reliability than a single wide 
RAID5 would, if RAID6 is not an option.

It is also perfectly possible to do RAID60, and get the benefits of both 
(at the cost of another disk in each set, obviously).

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-05 19:39 -0700
  Re: linux raid vs hw raid Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net> - 2011-04-06 08:01 +0100
    Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-04-06 10:03 +0200
      Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-06 14:00 -0700
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-04-06 23:42 +0200
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-08 10:45 +1000
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-04-08 11:12 +0200
            Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-08 08:22 -0700
              Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-09 09:51 +1000
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-08 17:10 -0700
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-04-09 13:14 +0200
            Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-09 09:47 +1000
              Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-04-09 13:55 +0200
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid Tris Orendorff <triso@remove-me.cogeco.ca> - 2011-04-12 18:04 +0000
            Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-12 11:34 -0700
              Re: linux raid vs hw raid The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-04-12 21:13 +0100
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-04-13 09:45 +0200
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-14 13:42 +1000
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-04-14 09:15 +0200
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-15 08:03 +1000
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net> - 2011-04-15 07:22 +0100
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-04-15 09:28 +0200
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-19 11:20 +1000
              Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-14 13:38 +1000
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-13 21:49 -0700
            Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-14 13:34 +1000
              Re: linux raid vs hw raid Tris Orendorff <triso@remove-me.cogeco.ca> - 2011-04-15 21:59 +0000
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-04-16 00:56 +0200
                Re: linux raid vs hw raid The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-04-16 01:32 +0100
  Re: linux raid vs hw raid Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2011-04-08 21:38 +0300
    Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-09 09:53 +1000
  Re: linux raid vs hw raid KR <kristian.rasmussen@broadpark.no.spam.com> - 2011-04-09 11:56 +0200
    Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-09 10:32 -0700
      Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-10 11:12 +1000
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-09 18:59 -0700
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid KR <kristian.rasmussen@broadpark.no.spam.com> - 2011-04-10 04:32 +0200
            Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-10 12:46 +1000
              Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-09 20:39 -0700
    Re: linux raid vs hw raid Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-04-10 03:47 +0000
      Re: linux raid vs hw raid Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-04-10 11:11 +0530
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-04-09 23:29 -0700
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-04-10 14:05 +0530
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-10 20:16 +1000
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net> - 2011-04-10 11:28 +0100
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-04-10 19:43 +0530
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-04-12 03:44 +0000
          Re: linux raid vs hw raid Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-04-12 13:56 +0530
      Re: linux raid vs hw raid Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2011-04-10 20:09 +1000
        Re: linux raid vs hw raid Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-04-12 03:37 +0000

csiph-web