Skip to main content

How is raid implemented at the *disk* level?

If disks have 512-byte physical sectors, and you have 10 disks using RAID 50 with a 1MB stripe-size how does that work at the disk level?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but conceptually, there would be 2 spans each consisting of a RAID-5 array of 5 disks, one mirrored to the other. Therefore, a "stripe" would consist of 4x256KB chunks of data, plus a single 256KB of parity data per stripes? or does a "stripe" include the parity?



What if you consider a 12-disk RAID 10 array? There would be 6 mirrored pairs of disks, with striping over those mirrors. So, for a 1MB stripe size, the stripe would be divided by 6, for 174,762.666 bytes per-disk, which works out to 341.333 physical sectors per stripe. Is that really 342 physical sectors per stripe?



For those who wonder why I'm asking; I am attempting to determine the most efficient number of disks relative to the type of RAID, with the best stripe size.







Also, I have seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels prior to asking this question. In fact, I've done a ton of work looking for low-level design details on a vast multitude of SCSI / SAS / RAID / SAN vendor sites, and have not seen anything that talks about the actual on-disk format of stripes. Stripes are only talked about at a highly conceptual level, which is fine, but doesn't really answer the question.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able