In computer storage, the standard RAID levels comprise a basic set of RAID ("redundant array of independent disks" or "redundant array of inexpensive disks") configurations that employ the techniques of striping, mirroring, or parity to create large reliable data stores from multiple general-purpose computer hard disk drives (HDDs). The most common types are RAID 0 (striping), RAID 1 (mirroring) and its variants, RAID 5 (distributed parity), and RAID 6 (dual parity). Multiple RAID levels can also be combined or nested , for instance RAID 10 (striping of mirrors) or RAID 01 (mirroring stripe sets). RAID levels and their associated data formats are standardized by the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) in the Common RAID Disk Drive Format (DDF) standard. [1] The numerical values only serve as identifiers and do not signify performance, reliability, generation, hierarchy, or any other metric.
While most RAID levels can provide good protection against and recovery from hardware defects or defective sectors/read errors (hard errors), they do not provide any protection against data loss due to catastrophic failures (fire, water) or soft errors such as user error, software malfunction, or malware infection. For valuable data, RAID is only one building block of a larger data loss prevention and recovery scheme – it cannot replace a backup plan.
RAID 0 (also known as a stripe set or striped volume) splits ("stripes") data evenly across two or more disks, without parity information, redundancy, or fault tolerance. Since RAID 0 provides no fault tolerance or redundancy, the failure of one drive will cause the entire array to fail, due to data being striped across all disks. This configuration is typically implemented having speed as the intended goal. [2] [3] RAID 0 is normally used to increase performance, although it can also be used as a way to create a large logical volume out of two or more physical disks. [4]
A RAID 0 setup can be created with disks of differing sizes, but the storage space added to the array by each disk is limited to the size of the smallest disk. For example, if a 120 GB disk is striped together with a 320 GB disk, the size of the array will be 120 GB × 2 = 240 GB. However, some RAID implementations would allow the remaining 200 GB to be used for other purposes.[ citation needed ]
The diagram in this section shows how the data is distributed into stripes on two disks, with A1:A2 as the first stripe, A3:A4 as the second one, etc. Once the stripe size is defined during the creation of a RAID 0 array, it needs to be maintained at all times. Since the stripes are accessed in parallel, an n-drive RAID 0 array appears as a single large disk with a data rate n times higher than the single-disk rate.
A RAID 0 array of n drives provides data read and write transfer rates up to n times as high as the individual drive rates, but with no data redundancy. As a result, RAID 0 is primarily used in applications that require high performance and are able to tolerate lower reliability, such as in scientific computing [5] or gaming. [6]
Some benchmarks of desktop applications show RAID 0 performance to be marginally better than a single drive. [7] [8] Another article examined these claims and concluded that "striping does not always increase performance (in certain situations it will actually be slower than a non-RAID setup), but in most situations it will yield a significant improvement in performance". [9] [10] Synthetic benchmarks show different levels of performance improvements when multiple HDDs or SSDs are used in a RAID 0 setup, compared with single-drive performance. However, some synthetic benchmarks also show a drop in performance for the same comparison. [11] [12]
RAID 1 consists of an exact copy (or mirror ) of a set of data on two or more disks; a classic RAID 1 mirrored pair contains two disks. This configuration offers no parity, striping, or spanning of disk space across multiple disks, since the data is mirrored on all disks belonging to the array, and the array can only be as big as the smallest member disk. This layout is useful when read performance or reliability is more important than write performance or the resulting data storage capacity. [13] [14]
The array will continue to operate so long as at least one member drive is operational. [15]
Any read request can be serviced and handled by any drive in the array; thus, depending on the nature of I/O load, random read performance of a RAID 1 array may equal up to the sum of each member's performance, [a] while the write performance remains at the level of a single disk. However, if disks with different speeds are used in a RAID 1 array, overall write performance is equal to the speed of the slowest disk. [14] [15]
Synthetic benchmarks show varying levels of performance improvements when multiple HDDs or SSDs are used in a RAID 1 setup, compared with single-drive performance. However, some synthetic benchmarks also show a drop in performance for the same comparison. [11] [12]
RAID 2, which is rarely used in practice, stripes data at the bit (rather than block) level, and uses a Hamming code for error correction. The disks are synchronized by the controller to spin at the same angular orientation (they reach index at the same time [16] ), so it generally cannot service multiple requests simultaneously. [17] [18] However, depending with a high rate Hamming code, many spindles would operate in parallel to simultaneously transfer data so that "very high data transfer rates" are possible [19] as for example in the Thinking Machines' DataVault where 32 data bits were transmitted simultaneously. The IBM 353 [20] also observed a similar usage of Hamming code and was capable of transmitting 64 data bits simultaneously, along with 8 ECC bits.
With all hard disk drives implementing internal error correction, the complexity of an external Hamming code offered little advantage over parity so RAID 2 has been rarely implemented; it is the only original level of RAID that is not currently used. [17] [18]
RAID 3, which is rarely used in practice, consists of byte-level striping with a dedicated parity disk. One of the characteristics of RAID 3 is that it generally cannot service multiple requests simultaneously, which happens because any single block of data will, by definition, be spread across all members of the set and will reside in the same physical location on each disk. Therefore, any I/O operation requires activity on every disk and usually requires synchronized spindles.
This makes it suitable for applications that demand the highest transfer rates in long sequential reads and writes, for example uncompressed video editing. Applications that make small reads and writes from random disk locations will get the worst performance out of this level. [18]
The requirement that all disks spin synchronously (in a lockstep) added design considerations that provided no significant advantages over other RAID levels. Both RAID 3 and RAID 4 were quickly replaced by RAID 5. [21] RAID 3 was usually implemented in hardware, and the performance issues were addressed by using large disk caches. [18]
RAID 4 consists of block-level striping with a dedicated parity disk. As a result of its layout, RAID 4 provides good performance of random reads, while the performance of random writes is low due to the need to write all parity data to a single disk, [22] unless the filesystem is RAID-4-aware and compensates for that.
An advantage of RAID 4 is that it can be quickly extended online, without parity recomputation, as long as the newly added disks are completely filled with 0-bytes.
In diagram 1, a read request for block A1 would be serviced by disk 0. A simultaneous read request for block B1 would have to wait, but a read request for B2 could be serviced concurrently by disk 1.
RAID 5 consists of block-level striping with distributed parity. Unlike in RAID 4, parity information is distributed among the drives. It requires that all drives but one be present to operate. Upon failure of a single drive, subsequent reads can be calculated from the distributed parity such that no data is lost. [5] RAID 5 requires at least three disks. [23]
There are many layouts of data and parity in a RAID 5 disk drive array depending upon the sequence of writing across the disks, [24] that is:
The figure shows 1) data blocks written left to right, 2) the parity block at the end of the stripe and 3) the first block of the next stripe not on the same disk as the parity block of the previous stripe. It can be designated as a Left Asynchronous RAID 5 layout [24] and this is the only layout identified in the last edition of The Raid Book [25] published by the defunct Raid Advisory Board. [26] In a Synchronous layout the data first block of the next stripe is written on the same drive as the parity block of the previous stripe.
In comparison to RAID 4, RAID 5's distributed parity evens out the stress of a dedicated parity disk among all RAID members. Additionally, write performance is increased since all RAID members participate in the serving of write requests. Although it will not be as efficient as a striping (RAID 0) setup, because parity must still be written, this is no longer a bottleneck. [27]
Since parity calculation is performed on the full stripe, small changes to the array experience write amplification[ citation needed ]: in the worst case when a single, logical sector is to be written, the original sector and the according parity sector need to be read, the original data is removed from the parity, the new data calculated into the parity and both the new data sector and the new parity sector are written.
RAID 6 extends RAID 5 by adding a second parity block; thus, it uses block-level striping with two parity blocks distributed across all member disks. [28] RAID 6 requires at least four disks.
As in RAID 5, there are many layouts of RAID 6 disk arrays depending upon the direction the data blocks are written, the location of the parity blocks with respect to the data blocks and whether or not the first data block of a subsequent stripe is written to the same drive as the last parity block of the prior stripe. The figure to the right is just one of many such layouts.
According to the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), the definition of RAID 6 is: "Any form of RAID that can continue to execute read and write requests to all of a RAID array's virtual disks in the presence of any two concurrent disk failures. Several methods, including dual check data computations (parity and Reed–Solomon), orthogonal dual parity check data and diagonal parity, have been used to implement RAID Level 6." [29]
The second block is usually labeled Q, with the first block labeled P. Typically the P block is calculated as the parity (XORing) of the data, the same as RAID 5. Different implementations of RAID 6 use different erasure codes to calculate the Q block, often one of Reed Solomon, EVENODD, Row Diagonal Parity (RDP), Mojette, or Liberation codes. [30] [31] [32] [33]
RAID 6 does not have a performance penalty for read operations, but it does have a performance penalty on write operations because of the overhead associated with parity calculations. Performance varies greatly depending on how RAID 6 is implemented in the manufacturer's storage architecture—in software, firmware, or by using firmware and specialized ASICs for intensive parity calculations. RAID 6 can read up to the same speed as RAID 5 with the same number of physical drives. [34]
When either diagonal or orthogonal dual parity is used, a second parity calculation is necessary for write operations. This doubles CPU overhead for RAID-6 writes, versus single-parity RAID levels. When a Reed Solomon code is used, the second parity calculation is unnecessary.[ citation needed ] Reed Solomon has the advantage of allowing all redundancy information to be contained within a given stripe.[ clarification needed ]
It is possible to support a far greater number of drives by choosing the parity function more carefully. The issue we face is to ensure that a system of equations over the finite field has a unique solution. To do this, we can use the theory of polynomial equations over finite fields.
Consider the Galois field with . This field is isomorphic to a polynomial field for a suitable irreducible polynomial of degree over . We will represent the data elements as polynomials in the Galois field. Let correspond to the stripes of data across hard drives encoded as field elements in this manner. We will use to denote addition in the field, and concatenation to denote multiplication. The reuse of is intentional: this is because addition in the finite field represents to the XOR operator, so computing the sum of two elements is equivalent to computing XOR on the polynomial coefficients.
A generator of a field is an element of the field such that is different for each non-negative . This means each element of the field, except the value , can be written as a power of A finite field is guaranteed to have at least one generator. Pick one such generator , and define and as follows:
As before, the first checksum is just the XOR of each stripe, though interpreted now as a polynomial. The effect of can be thought of as the action of a carefully chosen linear feedback shift register on the data chunk. [35] Unlike the bit shift in the simplified example, which could only be applied times before the encoding began to repeat, applying the operator multiple times is guaranteed to produce unique invertible functions, which will allow a chunk length of to support up to data pieces.
If one data chunk is lost, the situation is similar to the one before. In the case of two lost data chunks, we can compute the recovery formulas algebraically. Suppose that and are the lost values with , then, using the other values of , we find constants and :
We can solve for in the second equation and plug it into the first to find , and then .
Unlike P, The computation of Q is relatively CPU intensive, as it involves polynomial multiplication in . This can be mitigated with a hardware implementation or by using an FPGA.
The above Vandermonde matrix solution can be extended to triple parity, but for beyond a Cauchy matrix construction is required. [36]
The following table provides an overview of some considerations for standard RAID levels. In each case, array space efficiency is given as an expression in terms of the number of drives, n; this expression designates a fractional value between zero and one, representing the fraction of the sum of the drives' capacities that is available for use. For example, if three drives are arranged in RAID 3, this gives an array space efficiency of 1 − 1/n = 1 − 1/3 = 2/3 ≈ 67%; thus, if each drive in this example has a capacity of 250 GB, then the array has a total capacity of 750 GB but the capacity that is usable for data storage is only 500 GB. Different RAID configurations can also detect failure during so called data scrubbing.
Historically disks were subject to lower reliability and RAID levels were also used to detect which disk in the array had failed in addition to that a disk had failed. Though as noted by Patterson et al. even at the inception of RAID many (though not all) disks were already capable of finding internal errors using error correcting codes. In particular it is/was sufficient to have a mirrored set of disks to detect a failure, but two disks were not sufficient to detect which had failed in a disk array without error correcting features. [37] Modern RAID arrays depend for the most part on a disk's ability to identify itself as faulty which can be detected as part of a scrub. The redundant information is used to reconstruct the missing data, rather than to identify the faulted drive. Drives are considered to have faulted if they experience an unrecoverable read error, which occurs after a drive has retried many times to read data and failed. Enterprise drives may also report failure in far fewer tries than consumer drives as part of TLER to ensure a read request is fulfilled in a timely manner. [38]
Level | Description | Minimum number of drives [b] | Space efficiency | Fault tolerance | Fault isolation | Read performance | Write performance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
as factor of single disk | |||||||
RAID 0 | Block-level striping without parity or mirroring | 2 | 1 | None | Drive Firmware Only | n | n |
RAID 1 | Mirroring without parity or striping | 2 | 1/n | n − 1 drive failures | Drive Firmware or voting if n > 2 | n [a] [15] | 1 [c] [15] |
RAID 2 | Bit-level striping with Hamming code for error correction | 3 | 1 − 1/n log2 (n + 1) | One drive failure [d] | Drive Firmware and Parity | Depends[ clarification needed ] | Depends[ clarification needed ] |
RAID 3 | Byte-level striping with dedicated parity | 3 | 1 − 1/n | One drive failure | Drive Firmware and Parity | n − 1 | n − 1 [e] |
RAID 4 | Block-level striping with dedicated parity | 3 | 1 − 1/n | One drive failure | Drive Firmware and Parity | n − 1 | n − 1 [e] [ citation needed ] |
RAID 5 | Block-level striping with distributed parity | 3 | 1 − 1/n | One drive failure | Drive Firmware and Parity | n [e] | single sector: 1/4 [f] full stripe: n − 1 [e] [ citation needed ] |
RAID 6 | Block-level striping with double distributed parity | 4 | 1 − 2/n | Two drive failures | Drive Firmware and Parity | n [e] | single sector: 1/6 [f] full stripe: n − 2 [e] [ citation needed ] |
In measurement of the I/O performance of five filesystems with five storage configurations—single SSD, RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 10, and RAID 5 it was shown that F2FS on RAID 0 and RAID 5 with eight SSDs outperforms EXT4 by 5 times and 50 times, respectively. The measurements also suggest that the RAID controller can be a significant bottleneck in building a RAID system with high speed SSDs. [40]
Combinations of two or more standard RAID levels. They are also known as RAID 0+1 or RAID 01, RAID 0+3 or RAID 03, RAID 1+0 or RAID 10, RAID 5+0 or RAID 50, RAID 6+0 or RAID 60, and RAID 10+0 or RAID 100.
In addition to standard and nested RAID levels, alternatives include non-standard RAID levels, and non-RAID drive architectures. Non-RAID drive architectures are referred to by similar terms and acronyms, notably JBOD ("just a bunch of disks"), SPAN/BIG, and MAID ("massive array of idle disks").
A hard disk drive (HDD), hard disk, hard drive, or fixed disk is an electro-mechanical data storage device that stores and retrieves digital data using magnetic storage with one or more rigid rapidly rotating platters coated with magnetic material. The platters are paired with magnetic heads, usually arranged on a moving actuator arm, which read and write data to the platter surfaces. Data is accessed in a random-access manner, meaning that individual blocks of data can be stored and retrieved in any order. HDDs are a type of non-volatile storage, retaining stored data when powered off. Modern HDDs are typically in the form of a small rectangular box.
RAID is a data storage virtualization technology that combines multiple physical data storage components into one or more logical units for the purposes of data redundancy, performance improvement, or both. This is in contrast to the previous concept of highly reliable mainframe disk drives known as single large expensive disk (SLED).
A parity bit, or check bit, is a bit added to a string of binary code. Parity bits are a simple form of error detecting code. Parity bits are generally applied to the smallest units of a communication protocol, typically 8-bit octets (bytes), although they can also be applied separately to an entire message string of bits.
In computer data storage, data striping is the technique of segmenting logically sequential data, such as a file, so that consecutive segments are stored on different physical storage devices.
Low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes are a class of error correction codes which have gained prominence in coding theory and information theory since the late 1990s. The codes today are widely used in applications ranging from wireless communications to flash-memory storage. Together with turbo codes, they sparked a revolution in coding theory, achieving order-of-magnitude improvements in performance compared to traditional error correction codes.
The HP Storageworks XP is a computer data storage disk array sold by Hewlett Packard Enterprise using Hitachi Data Systems hardware and adding their own software to it. It's based on the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and targeted towards enabling large scale consolidation, large database, Oracle, SAP, Exchange, and online transaction processing (OLTP) environments.
In coding theory, an erasure code is a forward error correction (FEC) code under the assumption of bit erasures, which transforms a message of k symbols into a longer message with n symbols such that the original message can be recovered from a subset of the n symbols. The fraction r = k/n is called the code rate. The fraction k’/k, where k’ denotes the number of symbols required for recovery, is called reception efficiency. The recovery algorithm expects that it is known which of the n symbols are lost.
The Write Anywhere File Layout (WAFL) is a proprietary file system that supports large, high-performance RAID arrays, quick restarts without lengthy consistency checks in the event of a crash or power failure, and growing the filesystems size quickly. It was designed by NetApp for use in its storage appliances like NetApp FAS, AFF, Cloud Volumes ONTAP and ONTAP Select.
A NetApp FAS is a computer storage product by NetApp running the ONTAP operating system; the terms ONTAP, AFF, ASA, FAS are often used as synonyms. "Filer" is also used as a synonym although this is not an official name. There are three types of FAS systems: Hybrid, All-Flash, and All SAN Array:
A solid-state drive (SSD) is a type of solid-state storage device that uses integrated circuits to store data persistently. It is sometimes called semiconductor storage device, solid-state device, or solid-state disk.
In computing, error recovery control (ERC) is a feature of hard disks which allow a system administrator to configure the amount of time a drive's firmware is allowed to spend recovering from a read or write error. Limiting the recovery time allows for improved error handling in hardware or software RAID environments. In some cases, there is a conflict as to whether error handling should be undertaken by the hard drive or by the RAID implementation, which leads to drives being marked as unusable and significant performance degradation, when this could otherwise have been avoided.
Nested RAID levels, also known as hybrid RAID, combine two or more of the standard RAID levels to gain performance, additional redundancy or both, as a result of combining properties of different standard RAID layouts.
Although all RAID implementations differ from the specification to some extent, some companies and open-source projects have developed non-standard RAID implementations that differ substantially from the standard. Additionally, there are non-RAID drive architectures, providing configurations of multiple hard drives not referred to by RAID acronyms.
In computer storage, a disk buffer is the embedded memory in a hard disk drive (HDD) or solid-state drive (SSD) acting as a buffer between the rest of the computer and the physical hard disk platter or flash memory that is used for storage. Modern hard disk drives come with 8 to 256 MiB of such memory, and solid-state drives come with up to 4 GB of cache memory.
mdadm is a Linux utility used to manage and monitor software RAID devices. It is used in modern Linux distributions in place of older software RAID utilities such as raidtools2 or raidtools.
A trim command allows an operating system to inform a solid-state drive (SSD) which blocks of data are no longer considered to be "in use" and therefore can be erased internally.
Write amplification (WA) is an undesirable phenomenon associated with flash memory and solid-state drives (SSDs) where the actual amount of information physically written to the storage media is a multiple of the logical amount intended to be written.
bcache is a cache mechanism in the Linux kernel's block layer, which is used for accessing secondary storage devices. It allows one or more fast storage devices, such as flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs), to act as a cache for one or more slower storage devices, such as hard disk drives (HDDs); this effectively creates hybrid volumes and provides performance improvements.
Dell EMC Unity is one of Dell EMC's mid-range storage array product lines. It was designed from the ground up as the next-generation midrange unified storage array after the EMC VNX and VNXe series, which evolved out of the EMC Clariion SAN disk array.
ZFS is a file system with volume management capabilities. It began as part of the Sun Microsystems Solaris operating system in 2001. Large parts of Solaris, including ZFS, were published under an open source license as OpenSolaris for around 5 years from 2005 before being placed under a closed source license when Oracle Corporation acquired Sun in 2009–2010. During 2005 to 2010, the open source version of ZFS was ported to Linux, Mac OS X and FreeBSD. In 2010, the illumos project forked a recent version of OpenSolaris, including ZFS, to continue its development as an open source project. In 2013, OpenZFS was founded to coordinate the development of open source ZFS. OpenZFS maintains and manages the core ZFS code, while organizations using ZFS maintain the specific code and validation processes required for ZFS to integrate within their systems. OpenZFS is widely used in Unix-like systems.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)A single parity disk can detect a single error, but to correct an error we need enough check disks to identify the disk with the error. [...] Most check disks in the level 2 RAID are used to determine which disk failed, for only one redundant parity disk is needed to detect an error. These extra disks are truly "redundant" since most disk controllers can already detect If a dusk failed either through special signals provided in the disk interface or the extra checking information at the end of a sector
{{cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (help)