Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:27:55 +1030
From:      Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
To:        "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com>, Gary Palmer <gjp@in-addr.com>, scsi@FreeBSD.org, up@3.am, Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl>
Subject:   Re: hardware vs software stripping
Message-ID:  <20000202112755.L55303@freebie.lemis.com>
In-Reply-To: <200002012221.PAA62239@caspian.plutotech.com>
References:  <20000202082214.S76348@freebie.lemis.com> <200002012221.PAA62239@caspian.plutotech.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday,  1 February 2000 at 15:21:04 -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
>> That doesn't correspond to any of the definitions I have seen.  Where
>> did you get it from?
>
> This is from the RAID Advisory board's RAID book.  Take a look at
> www.raid-advisory.com for ordering details.

Hmm.  That's cheaper than I remember it.  I thought it was in the
order of $500.  I suppose I should order it.

> Here's what the RAID Advisory's RAID book has to say:
>
> RAID Level 3
>
> Raid Level 3 adds redundant information in the form of parity to a parallel
> access striped array, permitting regeneration and rebuilding in the event
> of a disk failure.  One "strip" of parity protects corresponding strips of
> data on the remaining disks.  Raid Level 3 provides high data transfer
> rate and high data availability, at an inherently lower cost than mirroring.
> Its transaction performance is poor, however, because all RAID Level 3 array
> member disks operate in lockstep.
>
> RAID Level 4
>
> Like RAID Level 3, RAID Level 4 uses parity concentrated on a single disk
> to protect data.  Unlike RAID Level 3, however, a RAID Level 4 array's
> member disks are independently accessible.  Its performance is therefore
> more suited to transaction I/O than large file transfers.  Raid Level 4 is
> seldom implemented without accompanying technology, such as a write-back
> cache, because the dedicated parity disk represents an inherent write
> bottleneck.

Is this all they say about it?  It begs the question why RAID-3 must
access all members of the disk at a time.  The only reason I can think
of is that the data is interleaved in such a manner that you can't get
*any* useful data without reading them all.  This rather agrees with
the idea that the data is spread in units of less than a sector.  It
also doesn't say why RAID-4 is less suitable for large file
transfers.

My understanding is that RAID-3, effectively striping at a sub-sector
level, can give much higher data rates without buffering, and that's
its raison d'être.

>>> In RAID4, it is supposed to be a multiple of your transaction size
>>
>> Where do you get the term "transaction" from?  I haven't seen it in
>
> From the dictionary?  8-)
>
> The point is that your system is such that you may be able to
> satisfy a request by only reading one component of the stripe.

That's one point.  My point is that a transaction may be of various
sizes, whereas the stripe has a fixed size.

>> any RAID documentation.  In ufs, there is no fixed size.
>
> Sure there is, the block size (i.e. 8k.)

ufs has a block size, sure, but the transfers are very seldom equal to
the block size.

> But then again, you wouldn't usually use RAID 3 or 4 for a
> filesystem.

Agreed.  I wouldn't use RAID-4 for anything.

>>> and RMW operations to update the parity for updating contiguous
>>> transactions that are not as large as the stripe.
>>
>> I'd call both of these RAID-4, considering that RAID doesn't use the
>> term "transaction".
>
> Sure it does.

Is this in The Book as well?  How is it defined?

> In RAID-3, your transaction size *is* the stripe size.  In RAID-4,
> it may be less than the stripe size.

So what is it in the Pluto implementation that stops you from
reading only part of a RAID-3 stripe?

Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000202112755.L55303>