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

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

>>>> 255 data disks is the theoretical limit for GF(2⁸). [ ... ]

>>> 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.

>> [ ... ] extreme requirements implied by that why not use self
>> repairing coding similarly to Parchive style storage formats,
>> [ ... ]

> it depends on other requirements, for example if you want to
> control your file or let the control to the "cloud".  In case
> of RAID, the cloud sees only raw bytes and the local host sees
> the files too. In case of par2, the cloud must see the
> files. [ ... ]

Perhaps it was not clear that "use self repairing coding
similarly to Parchive" does not mean the same as "use Parchive".

Applying self repairing coding to RAID might be easier to
imagine considering of a RAID volume as a directory of
stripe-sized files.
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