Re: Why do I need 4 disks for a raid6?

On Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:08:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

Andre Noll [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 08:34, Ruslan Sivak wrote:

quoted

I would guess the reason is that it doesn't make sense.  As mentioned, if
you are going to create a 3 disk raid 6, it's essentially a raid1 over 3
disks, at which point you are better off with the raid-1.  I don't think
there's a raid controller that would let you set something like this up, I
don't see why the softraid should.

Well, Goswin mentioned some pretty good reasons I think.

Raid6 is the only level that requires such "sanity".

Here is another scenario: Say you have a 2 disk raid1 and now want to
switch to 5 disk raid6. No problem, add 3 new disks, set up 1+2 disk
raid6, pvmove the data (don't you love LVM?), stop the raid1, grow the
raid6 to 5 disks.

It is clear that 1+2 disk raid6 only makes sense as a transitory step
but one that is usefull.

You could do this via the new RAID5-RAID6 migration. Either:
    - recreate the two disk RAID1 as RAID5 (assume clean)
    - add 2 disks and grow the array
    - add the fifth disk and convert to RAID6
or
    - create a new 3-disk RAID5 array
    - copy/pvmove the data
    - add a fourth disk and grow the array
    - add the fifth disk and convert to RAID6
or even (not 100% sure this'll work until the RAID6 restriping work is
done):
    - create a new 3-disk RAID5 array
    - copy/pvmove the data
    - add a fourth disk and convert to RAID6
    - add the fifth disk and grow the array

So the 3-disk RAID6 isn't essential, though if there's no particular
reason to prohibit it then it might as well be allowed as an option.

Cheers,
    Robin
-- 
     ___        
    ( ' }     |       Robin Hill        [off-list ref] |
   / / )      | Little Jim says ....                            |
  // !!       |      "He fallen in de water !!"                 |