|
|
|
|
|
|
by londons_explore
2131 days ago
|
|
|
I'm interested that you don't use nested codes... You could then for example have 18/2, and then group together 400 drives in a 2nd layer of 19/1. Hey, I reckon you could do 19/1,39/1, reducing your storage costs 7.5%... Sure, the worst case rebuild cost is much worse, but overall data loss probability is far lower, and a 2nd layer rebuild is a very rare event, and in that case, your customers totally prefer a few extra seconds latency over an email reporting their data is lost... I assume you mostly do streaming rather than random writes, so the overhead is evenly spread amongst the disks, and is the same 15% as your current scheme. |
|
|