Re: Is this enough for us to have triple-parity RAID?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Hi again David,

> Yes, being a generator for GF(2^8) is a requirement for a parity
> generator (sorry for the confusing terminology here - if anyone has
> a better suggestion, please say) to be part of a 255 data disk
> system. However, being a GF generator is necessary but not
> sufficient - using parity generators (1, 2, 4, 16) will /not/ give
> quad parity for 255 data disks, even though individually each of 1,
> 2, 4 and 16 are generators for GF.

I ask again, could you please elaborate this?
I nowhere found such a further constrain for the parities.

All I could find is that the Vandermonde matrix must
be done with generators.

> 255 data disks is the theoretical limit for GF(2⁸).  But it is a
> theoretical limit of the algorithms - I don't know whether Linux md
> raid actually supports that many disks.  I certainly doubt if it is
> useful.

The reason to use many disks is in case of
geo-redundant RAID, for example with iscsi.
In this situation you want to have a lot of
redundance, in parities, not mirror.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Managing RAID on Linux]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device-Mapper]     [Kernel]     [Linux Books]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [AMD 64]     [Linux Networking]

Add to Google Powered by Linux