From: Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Petabytes on a budget: JBODs + Linux + JFS
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:10:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090921191005.DD14F5B55@mail.bitblocks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:02:40 EDT." <650f1c31a83a452580882cbad2dfbba7@quanstro.net>
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:02:40 EDT erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> > > i would think this is acceptable. at these low levels, something
> > > else is going to get you -- like drives failing unindependently.
> > > say because of power problems.
> >
> > 8% rate for an array rebuild may or may not be acceptable
> > depending on your application.
>
> i think the lesson here is don't by cheep drives; if you
> have enterprise drives at 1e-15 error rate, the fail rate
> will be 0.8%. of course if you don't have a raid, the fail
> rate is 100%.
>
> if that's not acceptable, then use raid 6.
Hopefully Raid 6 or zfs's raidz2 works well enough with cheap
drives!
> > > so there are 4 ways to fail. 3 double fail have a probability of
> > > 3*(2^9 bits * 1e-14 1/ bit)^2
> >
> > Why 2^9 bits? A sector is 2^9 bytes or 2^12 bits.
>
>
> cut-and-paste error. sorry that was 2^19 bits, e.g. 64k*8 bits/byte.
> the calculation is still correct, since it was done on that basis.
Ok.
> > If per sector recovery is done, you have
> > 3E-22*(64K/512) = 3.84E-20
>
> i'd be interested to know if anyone does this. it's not
> as easy as it would first appear. do you know of any
> hardware or software that does sector-level recovery?
No idea -- I haven't really looked in this area in ages. In
case of two stripes being bad it would make sense to me to
reread a stripe one sector at a time since chances of the
exact same sector being bad on two disks is much lower (about
2^14 times smaller for 64k stripes?). I don't know if disk
drives return a error bit array along with data of a
multisector read (nth bit is set if nth sector could not be
recovered). If not, that would be a worthwhile addition.
> i don't have enough data to know how likely it is to
> have exactly 1 bad sector. any references?
Not sure what you are asking. Reed-solomon are block codes,
applied to a whole sector so per sector error rate is
UER*512*8 where UER == uncorrectable error rate. [Early IDE
disks had 4 byte ECC per sector. Now that bits are packed so
tight, S/N ratio is far worse and ECC is at least 40 bytes,
to keep UER to 1E-14 or whatever is the target].
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-21 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-14 16:43 erik quanstrom
2009-09-20 20:13 ` Bakul Shah
2009-09-21 3:37 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-21 17:43 ` Bakul Shah
2009-09-21 18:02 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-21 18:49 ` Wes Kussmaul
2009-09-21 19:21 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-21 20:57 ` Wes Kussmaul
2009-09-21 22:42 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-22 10:59 ` matt
2009-09-21 19:10 ` Bakul Shah [this message]
2009-09-21 20:30 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-21 20:57 ` Jack Norton
2009-09-21 23:38 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-21 22:07 ` Bakul Shah
2009-09-21 23:35 ` Eris Discordia
2009-09-22 0:45 ` erik quanstrom
[not found] ` <6DC61E4A6EC613C81AC1688E@192.168.1.2>
2009-09-21 23:50 ` Eris Discordia
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-09-04 0:53 Roman V Shaposhnik
2009-09-04 1:20 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-04 9:37 ` matt
2009-09-04 14:30 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-04 16:54 ` Roman Shaposhnik
2009-09-04 12:24 ` Eris Discordia
2009-09-04 12:41 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-04 13:56 ` Eris Discordia
2009-09-04 14:10 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-04 18:34 ` Eris Discordia
[not found] ` <48F03982350BA904DFFA266E@192.168.1.2>
2009-09-07 20:02 ` Uriel
2009-09-08 13:32 ` Eris Discordia
2009-09-04 16:52 ` Roman Shaposhnik
2009-09-04 17:27 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-04 17:37 ` Jack Norton
2009-09-04 18:33 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-08 16:53 ` Jack Norton
2009-09-08 17:16 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-08 18:17 ` Jack Norton
2009-09-08 18:54 ` erik quanstrom
2009-09-14 15:50 ` Jack Norton
2009-09-14 17:05 ` Russ Cox
2009-09-14 17:48 ` Jack Norton
2009-09-04 23:25 ` James Tomaschke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090921191005.DD14F5B55@mail.bitblocks.com \
--to=bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).