Re: Triple parity and beyond
From: David Brown <hidden>
Date: 2013-11-25 09:15:19
Also in:
linux-btrfs
On 24/11/13 22:13, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 11/23/2013 11:14 PM, John Williams wrote:quoted
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Parity array rebuilds are read-modify-write operations. The main difference from normal operation RMWs is that the write is always to the same disk. As long as the stripe reads and chunk reconstruction outrun the write throughput then the rebuild speed should be as fast as a mirror rebuild. But this doesn't appear to be what people are experiencing. Parity rebuilds would seem to take much longer."This" doesn't appear to be what SOME people, who have reported issues, are experiencing. Their issues must be examined on a case by case basis.Given what you state below this may very well be the case.quoted
But I, and a number of other people I have talked to or corresponded with, have had mdadm RAID 5 or RAID 6 rebuilds of one drive run at approximately the optimal sequential write speed of the replacement drive. It is not unusual on a reasonably configured system.I freely admit I may have drawn an incorrect conclusion about md parity rebuild performance based on incomplete data. I simply don't recall anyone stating here in ~3 years that their parity rebuilds were speedy, but quite the opposite. I guess it's possible that each one of those cases was due to another factor, such as user load, slow CPU, bus bottleneck, wonky disk firmware, backplane issues, etc.
Maybe this is just reporting bias - people are quick to post about problems such as slow rebuilds, but very seldom send a message saying everything worked perfectly! There /are/ reasons why parity raid rebuilds are going to be slower than mirror rebuilds - delays on one disk reading is one issue, and I expect that simultaneous use of the array for normal work will have more impact on parity raid rebuild times than on a mirror array (certainly compared to raid10 with multiple pairs). I just don't think it is quite as bad as you think.