[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A9A810B9-2FA1-4BEB-AA16-5EB16A0839A3@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:21:33 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Cc: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Raid 0 Swap?
On Sep 05, 2006, at 19:44:30, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Final note: if you are building a really reliable system, RAID6 on
> all data, redundant power supplies (the highest point of total
> failure), then you should go to RAID0 for swap, on multiple
> controllers, preferably one drives in different enclosures. RAID6
> for swap sucks rocks off the bottom of the ocean, three way RAID1
> performs well even after a one drive failure.
There's also some interesting high-performance FPGA-based products
out there which stack another layer or two of reed-solomon coding on
top of a group of N existing drives so that you can handle up to M
drive failures where M < N, and optionally also a failure of a stripe
of up to K sectors out of every group of J sectors. IIRC your
average CD and DVD uses this kind of encoding, so if you have a bunch
of scattered errors or a single big error up to like 9k long you can
still recover all the data while decoding. Those kind of matrix
transformations would be dog-slow on a general purpose CPU, but with
custom FPGA or VLSI chips you can do it in parallel easily better
than disk bandwidth
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists