|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > July 2004 > Raid 6 in use?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Jerry Cloe 2004-07-11, 5:45 pm |
| Does anyone actually use RAID 6??
I've looked at several items recently from 3ware stuff, Dell stuff, and some
of IBM's big stuff, and there is never any mention of Raid 6.
| |
| Nik Simpson 2004-07-11, 5:45 pm |
| Jerry Cloe wrote:
> Does anyone actually use RAID 6??
>
> I've looked at several items recently from 3ware stuff, Dell stuff,
> and some of IBM's big stuff, and there is never any mention of Raid 6.
That's probably because no one has ever actually defined precisely what it
is beyond marketing :-) Different vendors have used the term for different
technologies in the past.
--
Nik Simpson
| |
| Malcolm Weir 2004-07-12, 8:45 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:54:31 -0400, "Nik Simpson"
<n_simpson@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Jerry Cloe wrote:
>
>That's probably because no one has ever actually defined precisely what it
>is beyond marketing :-) Different vendors have used the term for different
>technologies in the past.
Ummm... while certain notorious individuals have claimed their
implementations of some other scheme are actually a new scheme, I
think you'll find that RAID 6 is usually defined as a mechanism using
two different parity/ECC schemes such that a set can survive the loss
of any two disks.
Malc.
| |
| Faeandar 2004-07-12, 8:45 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:05:29 -0700, Malcolm Weir <malc@gelt.org>
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:54:31 -0400, "Nik Simpson"
><n_simpson@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>Ummm... while certain notorious individuals have claimed their
>implementations of some other scheme are actually a new scheme, I
>think you'll find that RAID 6 is usually defined as a mechanism using
>two different parity/ECC schemes such that a set can survive the loss
>of any two disks.
>
>Malc.
Prior to this post I had never heard of raid 6 and have (still) no
idea what it's structure is. Going on Malcolm's allusion I assume
Double Disk Parity or Diagonal Parity or whatever is raid 6 nowadays?
~F
| |
| Nik Simpson 2004-07-12, 8:45 pm |
| Malcolm Weir wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:54:31 -0400, "Nik Simpson"
> <n_simpson@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ummm... while certain notorious individuals have claimed their
> implementations of some other scheme are actually a new scheme,
Yes, that was precisely what/who I was thinking of :-)
> I think you'll find that RAID 6 is usually defined as a mechanism using
> two different parity/ECC schemes such that a set can survive the loss
> of any two disks.
I stand corrected, I realised that HP had defined RAID-6 this way, but I
din't realize that is a generally accepted definition.
--
Nik Simpson
| |
| Bill Todd 2004-07-12, 8:45 pm |
|
"Faeandar" <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q866f05aijftfbilh227n2c01uc6g9f91a@
4ax.com...
....
> Prior to this post I had never heard of raid 6 and have (still) no
> idea what it's structure is. Going on Malcolm's allusion I assume
> Double Disk Parity or Diagonal Parity or whatever is raid 6 nowadays?
Well, whatever allows you to survive the loss of any two disks without loss
of data (and isn't doubly-mirrored - i.e., is a parity-like mechanism).
Michael Rabin did some work a while ago on generalized mechanisms that allow
data to be spread across m + n disks such that up to n disks can be lost
without loss of data. Special solutions exist that allow the data on the m
disks to be usable directly (just as you can read directly from a member of
a RAID-5 set rather than having to read m disks to get anything at all).
Similar algorithms are IIRC used in the Berkeley 'Ocean Store' project,
which allows reconstruction of data from any m of m + n sources (unless I'm
thinking of Freenet - they are similar in some respects).
- bill
| |
| Paul Rubin 2004-07-13, 2:45 am |
| "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:
>
> Well, whatever allows you to survive the loss of any two disks without loss
> of data (and isn't doubly-mirrored - i.e., is a parity-like mechanism).
>
> Michael Rabin did some work a while ago on generalized mechanisms that allow
> data to be spread across m + n disks such that up to n disks can be lost
> without loss of data. Special solutions exist that allow the data on the m
> disks to be usable directly (just as you can read directly from a member of
> a RAID-5 set rather than having to read m disks to get anything at all).
There are pretty straightforward ways to do that. For example, choose
k so that 2**k is larger than m+n. k=8 is convenient and lets you
have up to 256 drives, which is more than you'll find in most RAID's,
and it means you do your operations on 8-bit data bytes. Let b(x,y)
denote the contents of byte #y on drive #x where the drives go from
0,1,...,m+n-1, and we'll assume k=8 below.
Now for the first m disks, just write the data directly, i.e. b(x,y)
for x < m is just whatever is in the file system at that spot. So now
you can use those disks directly. For the other n disks, set
b(x,y)=L(x) where L(x) is the value of the degree m-1 Lagrange
interpolation polynomial over GF(2**8) running through
(0, b(0,y)), (1, b(1,y)), ..., (m-1, b(m-1, y)) and evaluated at x.
That L(x) calculation requires some arithmetic in GF(2**8) that amount
to a few 8-bit xor's and 256-element table lookups for each byte
written to each of the spare drives, which can be done fast in either
hardware or software. It's more work than simply computing parity (m
xor's per byte) but it's still not too bad.
Is that similar to what Rabin did?
In general, error correcting codes designed to recover data where the
error locations are known are called "erasure codes" and there's a
body of literature about them. The example above is something I
figured out a while ago that I've never seen published, but I haven't
studied the field much so I don't know what else is out there. Then
again, I haven't implemented this scheme so maybe I made some
unfixable error and it just plain doesn't work ;-).
BTW, the above is loosely inspired by the Blakeley-Shamir secret
sharing scheme from cryptography, that lets you split up a secret
number into m+n pieces so that any m are enough to recover the number.
| |
| Benno... 2004-07-13, 7:45 am |
| Nik Simpson wrote:
>
>
> I stand corrected, I realised that HP had defined RAID-6 this way, but I
> din't realize that is a generally accepted definition.
>
I think HP/Compaq calls this Advanced Data Guard (ADG). Isn't the RAID-6
name copyrighted to someone?
B.
| |
| Stephane Guyetant 2004-07-13, 7:45 am |
| Bill Todd wrote:
> Well, whatever allows you to survive the loss of any two disks without loss
> of data (and isn't doubly-mirrored - i.e., is a parity-like mechanism).
>
> Michael Rabin did some work a while ago on generalized mechanisms that allow
> data to be spread across m + n disks such that up to n disks can be lost
> without loss of data. Special solutions exist that allow the data on the m
> disks to be usable directly (just as you can read directly from a member of
> a RAID-5 set rather than having to read m disks to get anything at all).
> Similar algorithms are IIRC used in the Berkeley 'Ocean Store' project,
> which allows reconstruction of data from any m of m + n sources (unless I'm
> thinking of Freenet - they are similar in some respects).
>
> - bill
>
[I agree]
I found in John May's 2001 book "Parallel IO for high performance
computing" that RAID 6 is a collection of techniques that allow a system
to lose 2 disks, for example:
-P+Q parity is like RAID5 with 2 algorithms
-MxN is like having the drives in a 2D array with M+N spare drives.
I think the max number of faulty drives with no data loss is M+N-1,
with adequate location; but it can not handle 4 drives failing if they
are in square.
[my question]
Inostor launched RAIDn last year, with attractive features.
http://www.inostor.com/products/pro...RAIDn_index.htm
None is said about algorithms, data placement, etc...
Is that marketing (some known RAID6 issues) or something different?
Stephane
| |
| Joshua Baker-LePain 2004-07-13, 7:45 am |
| In article <q866f05aijftfbilh227n2c01uc6g9f91a@4ax.com>, Faeandar wrote:
>
> Prior to this post I had never heard of raid 6 and have (still) no
> idea what it's structure is. Going on Malcolm's allusion I assume
> Double Disk Parity or Diagonal Parity or whatever is raid 6 nowadays?
>
There is a RAID6 implementation for Linux software RAID out there (and
I believe some folks are already using it in production). Perhaps
the details of it would clear this up a bit.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
| |
| Thor Lancelot Simon 2004-07-13, 5:45 pm |
| In article <slrncf7m3u.3b3.jlb17@chaos.egr.duke.edu>,
Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@begone.spam.duke.edu> wrote:
>In article <q866f05aijftfbilh227n2c01uc6g9f91a@4ax.com>, Faeandar wrote:
>There is a RAID6 implementation for Linux software RAID out there (and
ITYM "RAID6"
HTH
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
| |
| Thomas Wicklund 2004-07-13, 5:45 pm |
| Benno... wrote:
> Nik Simpson wrote:
>
>
> I think HP/Compaq calls this Advanced Data Guard (ADG). Isn't the RAID-6
> name copyrighted to someone?
You may be thinking of "RAID-7" from Storage Computer about 10 years
ago. It was a glorified RAID-4 box with vocal marketing.
RAID-6 is mentioned in the original Berkeley papers. They showed an NxM
matrix of disks with parity across and down. As other responders have
mentioned, there are ways to do N+2 directly.
One method (by Blaum at IBM, US patent 5271012 + others) is "even odd",
which uses diagonal parity for the second check disk. There is at least
one variant of this I've seen in a paper and at least one patent
application for a variant.
The Rabin paper mentioned in earlier responses discusses "information
dispersal", which can provide N data + M check disks. There is also a
paper "Tolerating Multiple Failures in RAID Architectures with Optimal
Storage and Uniform Declustering" by Guillermo Alvarez, Walter Burkhard,
and Flaviu Christian of UCSD (I got it online but don't have a URL).
The basic method is to define an N by N+M matrix where the first NxN
elements are an identity matrix and all N+M columns are linearly
independent. Encode the data by multiplying the data (in N chunks) by
the matrix. Recover data by multiplying the N returned chunks (data or
parity) by the inverse of the NxN matrix formed by using the columns for
the chunks recovered.
See also US patent 6557123 by Joseph Wiencko, assigned to Inostor. It
appears to be a form of the information dispersal method, but I've just
scanned the patent, not tried to read it in detail.
Thomas Wicklund
|
|
|
|
|