[Top] [All Lists]

swidth in RAID

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: swidth in RAID
From: aurfalien <aurfalien@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:43:12 -0700
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=VK9VZkRBHUcSc4Qp1EIs7caYm3LsJQoOo2ZDMk4/4ko=; b=YNhR7t43nBpP2B2GNruT1KQ7TRZ551iVmprM4aqN+OXBWWnS3v0siWjZvPiEwiauSb KCt5ERmlLirpp4cWSO0OhGM0Q461oqd2KQ0JQLpQ2tRrvADFVkvbopVeL7LQ8bssLMa/ I0cXereoSsc6wx0dT53uW4X/Y4cBLw46Hl7ivurQpDkH7eAuNpWYiyF4ptMl7IOcPCZv YH1+NV9mOX7e2OxJUEkwCue34IQ7aYxbtNMApYeCmzzp8JvEUy3WGZfjGpxmd5IdhU8a 3K9X9HbaiCEIXa5MMKkbAwsCkAXCtc15KGSrUkGYxI37udiKIH5LcUMGjVMigjDWRIOI +YnA==

I understand swidth should = #data disks.

And the docs say for RAID 6 of 8 disks, that means 6.

But parity is distributed and you actually have 8 disks/spindles working for 
you and a bit of parity on each.

So shouldn't swidth equal disks in raid when its concerning distributed parity 

- aurf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>