Slashdot Mirror
RAID's Days May Be Numbered
storagedude sends in an article claiming that RAID is nearing the end of the line because of soaring rebuild times and the growing risk of data loss. "The concept of parity-based RAID (levels 3, 5 and 6) is now pretty old in technological terms, and the technology's limitations will become pretty clear in the not-too-distant future — and are probably obvious to some users already. In my opinion, RAID-6 is a reliability Band Aid for RAID-5, and going from one parity drive to two is simply delaying the inevitable. The bottom line is this: Disk density has increased far more than performance and hard error rates haven't changed much, creating much greater RAID rebuild times and a much higher risk of data loss. In short, it's a scenario that will eventually require a solution, if not a whole new way of storing and protecting data."
Don't consider an entire drive is dead if you get a piddly one-sector error.
Just mark it read only and keep chugging.
Or just regenerate and write the one sector from the parity data since all modern hard disks reallocate bad sectors on write.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Honestly, there really aren't that many unsolved problems in computing if you are sufficiently aware enough to include mainframes and mainframe operating disciplines in your consideration. The basic way the mainframe community solved this particular problem long ago was to, first, take a holistic view about mitigating data loss. Double concurrent spindle failures are just one possible risk element. What about, for example, an entire data center exploding in a spectacular fireball? (Or whatever.) IBM, for example, came up with several different flavors of GDPS and continues to refine them, and they include multiple approaches to data storage tiering across geographies, depending on what you're trying to achieve. Data loss, whether physical or otherwise (such as security breaches), is not a particular problem with this class of technology and associated IT discipline, nor does there seem to be any signs of a growing problem in this particular technology class.
The author says it himself in the article:
"And running software RAID-5 or RAID-6 equivalent does not address the underlying issues with the drive. Yes, you could mirror to get out of the disk reliability penalty box, but that does not address the cost issue."
but he hasn't adressed the fact that today you get 100 times as much diskspace for the same cost as you did 10 years ago when cost was a factor. In real life cost isn't a factor when it comes to datastorage, simply because it's really low in real life projects, as compared to the other costs in a project requiring storage. So if you want the reliability you go get a mirror. Drivespace is dirt cheap.
As for the rebuildtimes, fine, go buy FASTER drives. I dont see the problem. HP and many other vendors have long been trying to sell combined raid soltions (like the EVA) where you mix high storage with high performance drives (like SSD vs. SATA).
The only real argument for the validity of this article is the personal use of drives/storage. And name 3 people you know who run raid-5 on their personal PCs, and I'll show you 3 guys who can't afford an SSD drive.
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
(Certain) RAID (levels) address the issue of potential dataloss due to hardware malfunction. How does moving to an Object-Based Storage Device address this issue better? Actually, I don't see how RAID and OSD are mutually exclusive.
Now that's a stupid article.
It basically says, you can't read a harddisk more than X times before you get an error on some sector, so RAID is dead. That's a logical nonsequitur. RAID is a generic technology that also applies to flash memory cards, USB sticks, anything you can store data on basically. The base technique says "given this reliability, you can up the reliability if you add some redundancy". There's no link to harddisks other than that that's what they're used for right now.
Disclaimer: I work for a storage vendor.
> FTA: The real fix must be based on new technology such as OSD, where the disk knows what is stored on it and only has to read and write the objects being managed, not the whole device
OSD doesn't change anything. The disk has failed. How has OSD helped?
> FTA: or something like declustered RAID
Just skimming that document it seems to claim: only reconstruct data, not white space, and use a parity scheme that limits damage. Enterprise arrays that have native filesystem virtualisation (WAFL for example) already do this. RAID 6 arrays do this.
Lets recap. Physical devices including SSDs will fail. You need to be able to recover from failure. The failure could be as bad as the entire physical device failing, or as bad as a single sector being unreadable. In the former case a RAID reconstruct will recover the data but you'll hit RAID recovery errors due to the raw amount of data that needs to be recovered. Enterprise arrays mitigate the risk of recovery errors by using RAID 6. They could even recover the data from a DR mirrored system as part of the recovery scheme.
And when RAID 6 has a high enough risk that it's worth expanding the scheme everyone will start switching from double parity schemes to triple parity schemes since their much less expensive in terms of spindle count than RAID 6+1.
One assumption is, at some point in the future, reconstructions will be a continual occurring background task just like any other background task that enterprise arrays handle. As long as there is enough resiliency and performance isn't impacted then it doesn't matter if a disk is being rebuilt.
Hardware RAID is dead - software for redundant storage is just getting started. I am looking forward to making use of btrfs so I can have some consistency and confidence to how I deal with any ultimately disposable storage component.
The ZFS folks have been doing it fine for some time now.
Hardware RAID controllers have no place in modern storage arrays - except those forced to run Windows
For enterprise level storage systems, this is also a non-issue because of thin provisioning.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I admit I'm not an expert, but I was under the impression that RAID was mainly about ensuring you a large number of spindles and some redundancy so you can serve data quickly even if a couple of drives fail while the servers are under pressure. Surely you would not rely on a RAID to avoid data loss since you should be keeping external backups anyway?
The article assumes that when within a RAID5 array a drive encounters a single sector failure (the most common failure scenario), an entire disk has to go offline, be replaced and rebuilt.
That is utter nonsense, of course. All that's needed is to rebuild a single affected stripe of the array to a spare disk. (You do have spares in your RAID setups, right?)
As soon as the single stripe is rebuilt, the whole array is again in a fully redundant state again - although the redundancy is spread across the drive with a bad sector and the spare.
Even better, modern drives have internal sector remapping tables and when a bad sector occurs, all the array has to do is to read the other disks, calculate the sector, and WRITE it back to the FAILED drive.
The drive will remap the sector, replace it with a good one, and tada, we have a well working array again. In fact, this is exactly what Linux's MD RAID5 driver does, so it's not just a theory.
Catastrophic whole-drive failures (head crash, etc) do happen, too. And there the article would have a point - you need to rebuild the whole array. But then - these are by a couple orders of magnitude less frequent than simple data errors. So no reason to worry again.
*sigh*
If you want smaller drives to speed up rebuild times then, erm, buy smaller drives? You can get ~70Gb 10Krpm and 15Krpm drives fairly readily - much smaller than the 500-to-2000-Gb monsters and faster too. You can still buy ~80Gb PATA drives too, I've seen them when shopping for larger models, though you only save a couple of peanuts compared to the cost of 250+Gb units.
If you can't afford those but still don't want 500+Gb drives because they take too long to rebuild if the array is compromised and needs a rebuild, and management won't let you buy bog standard 160Gb (or smaller) drives as they only cost 20% less than 750Gb units without the speed benefits of the high cost 15Krpm ones, how about using software RAID and only using the first part of the drive? Easily done with Linux's software RAID (partition the drives with a single 100Gb (for example) partition, and RAID that instead of the full drive) and I'm sure just as easy with other OSs. You'll get speed bonuses too: you'll be using the fastest part of the drive in terms of bulk transfer speed (most spinning drives are arranged such that the earlier tracks have higher data density) and you'll have lower latency on average as the heads will never need to move the full diameter of the platter. And you've got the rest of the drive space to expand onto if needed later. Or maybe you could hide your porn stash there.
I've managed to get this going, using the excellent FreeNAS - although proceed with caution, as only the beta build supports it, and I've already had serious (all data lost) crashes twice.
However the principle is sound, and I'm sure this will become standard before long - the only trouble being that HP, Dell and the like can't simply offer upgrades for existing RAID cards - due to the nature of ZFS, it needs a 'proper' CPU and a gig or two or RAM. Even so, it does protect against many of the problems now besetting RAID (which was never meant to handle modern, gargantuan disk sizes).
What about fountain codes? The coding there is capable of recovering from a greater variety of faults.
This is something the ZFS creators have been talking about for some time, and been actively trying to solve.
ZFS now has triple parity, as well as actively checksumming every disk block.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
But really none of that should be necessary for the general case. Storing data in different physical locations is a good but entirely unrelated issue- the main problem of disk reliability is still very much in need of a solution. That's pretty much the point of the article: You can come up with various solutions which move the problem around, give multiple fallbacks for when something goes wrong.. but there's still the problem of things going wrong in the first place. I shouldn't need to use 12 separate disks spread across the globe just for basic reliability / redundancy
Read that before on slashdot. Why RAID 5 Stops Working In 2009
Actually I like the parity declustering idea that was linked to in that article, seems to me if implemented correctly it could mitigate a large part of the issue. I have personally encountered the hard error on RAID5 rebuild issue, twice, so there definitely is a problem to be addressed...and yes, I do now only implement RAID6 as a result.
For those who haven't RTFATFALT (RTFA the f*** article links to), parity declustering, as I understand it, is where you have, say, an 8 drive array, but where each block is written to only a subset of those drives, say 4. Now, obviously you loose 25% of your storage capacity (1/4), but consider a rebuild for a failed disk. In this instance only 50% of your blocks are likely to be on your failed drive, so immediately you cut your rebuild time in half, halving your data reads, and therefore your chance of encountering a hard error. Larger numbers of disks in the array, or spanning your data over fewer drives, cuts this further.
Now, consider the flexibility you could build into an implmentation of this scheme. Simply by allowing the number of drives a block spans to be configurable on a per block basis, you could then allow any filesystem that is on that array to say, on a per file basis, how many disks to span over. You could then allow apps and sysadmins to say that a given file needs to have the maximum write performance, so diskSpan=2, which gives you effectively RAID10 for that file (each block is written to 2 drives, but with multiple blocks in the file is likely to be written to a different pair of drives, not quite RAID10, but close). Where you didn't want a file to consume 2x its size on the storage system, you could allow a higher diskSpan number. You could also allow configurable parity on a per block basis, so particularly important files can survive multiple disk failures, temp files could have no parity. There would need to be a rule however that parity+diskSpan is less than or equal to the number of devices in the array.
Obviously there is an issue here where the total capacity of the array is not knowable, files with diskSpan numbers lower than the default for the array will reduce the capacity, numbers higher will increase it. This alone might require new filesystems, but you could implement todays filesystems on this array as long as you disallowed the per-block diskSpan feature.
This even helps for expanding the array, as there is now no need to re-read all of the data in the array (with the resulting chance of encountering a hard error, adding huge load to the system causing a drive to fail, etc). The extra capacity is simply available. Over time you probably want a redistribution routine to move data from the existing array members to the new members to spread the load and capacity.
How about you implement a performance optimiser too, that looks for the most frequently accessed blocks and ensures they are evenly spread over the disks. If you take into account the performance of the individual disks themselves, you could allow for effectively a hierarchical filesystem, so that one array contains, say, SSD, SAS and SATA drives, and the optimiser ensures that data is allocated to individual drives based on the frequency of access of that data and the performance of the drive. Obviously the applications or sysadmin could indicate to the array which files were more performance sensitive, so influencing the eventual location of the data as it is written.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
I shouldn't need to use 12 separate disks spread across the globe just for basic reliability / redundancy
You're trying to weasel out of paying IBM protection money !
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Will scalable distributed storage systems like Hadoop and Google File System take over from RAID?
As others have mentioned, this is something that is discussed on the ZFS mailing lists frequently.
For more info there, check out the digest for zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
and, in particular, check out Richard Elling's blog
(Disclaimer: I work for Sun, but not in the ZFS group)
The fundamental problem here isn't the RAID concept, is that the throughput and access times of spinning rust haven't changed much in 30 years. Fundamentally, today's hard drive is no more than 100 times as fast (both in throughput and latency) than a 1980s one, while it holds well over 1 million times more.
ZFS (and other advanced filesystems) will now do partial reconstruction of a failed drive (that is, they don't have to bit copy the entire drive, only the parts which are used), which helps. But there are still problems. ZFS's pathological case results in rebuild times of 2-3 WEEKS for a 1TB drive in a RAID-Z (similar to RAID-5). It's all due to the horribly small throughput, maximum IOPs, and latency of the hard drive.
SSDs, on the other hand, are no where near the problem. They've got considerably more throughput than a hard drive, and, more importantly, THOUSANDS of times better IOPS. Frankly, more than any other reason, I expect the significant IOPS of the SSD to signal the death knell of HDs in the next decade. By 2020, expect HDs to be gone from everything, even in places where HDs still have better GB/$. The rebuild rates and maintenance of HDs simply can't compete with flash.
Note: IOPS = I/O Per Second, or the number of read/write operations (irregardless of size) which a disk can service. HDs top out around 350, consumer SSDs do under 10,000, and high-end SSDs can do up to 100,000.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
The cloud. Just cloud it, baby. Nothing bad ever happens in the cloud; they're so white and fluffy after all.
Um, don't schemes like raid 1+0 solve the parity rebuild problem? Even in the worst case of full disk loss, only one disk needs to be rebuilt and even for a large disk that doesn't take very long. Am I missing something?
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
RAID 0 does not offer any redundancy. Just a performance increase from reading simultaneously from 2 drives.
Actually, storing data in a multiple data center / high availability environment is a completely related issue. The summary above talks of "entirely different paradigms." Cloud storage would be multiple data center based, which is entirely different from keeping the only copy on your local drives. In this concept, your machine would have enough OS to boot, and enough hard drive space to download the current version of whatever software you are leasing. Your personal info would always be maintained in the data centers, and only mirrored locally. Have a home failure? Drop in a new part or even a new PC, (possibly with an entirely different operating system, such as Chrome,) connect to the service, and you're 100% back.
It's no longer a novel concept for the home market. Consider Google Docs. It's not even being sold as "safer than RAID", it's being touted as "get it from anywhere" or "share with your friends". Safer than RAID is just a bonus.
So are we ready to move all our personal information to clouds? I certainly am not, but Google Docs are wildly popular and a lot of people are. I long ago learned that I can't look to myself to judge what the mainstream attitudes are in many things.
John
RAID 4 is where you have one dedicated parity drive. RAID 5 solves this by spreading the parity information for each drive to all the other drives in the array. RAID 6 adds a second parity block for increased reliability, but as a result of the increased write for that extra parity block, it slows down write speeds.
The real key to making RAID 4, 5, or 6 work is that you really need 4-6 drives in the array to take advantage of the design. I wouldn't say that it will fall out of favor though, because having solid protection from a single drive going bad really is critical for many businesses. Backups are all well and good for if your system crashes, but for most businesses, uptimes are more critical yet. So, backups for data so corruption problems can be rolled back, and RAID 5,6,10 for stability and to avoid having the entire system die if one drive goes bad. What takes more time, doing a data restore from a backup for when an individual application has problems, or having to restore the entire system from a backup, with the potential that the backup itself was corrupted?
With that said, web farms and other applications can get away with just using a cluster approach instead of a single well designed machine(or set of machines) have become popular, but there are many situations which make a system with one or more RAID arrays a better choice. The focus on RAID 0 and 1 for SMALL systems and residential setups has simply kept many people from realizing how useful a 4-drive RAID 5 setup would be.
Then again, most people go to a backup when they screw up their system, not because of a hard drive failure. With techs upgrading hardware before they run into a hard drive failure, the need for RAID 1, 4, 5, and 6 has dropped.
I will say this, since a RAID 5 array can rebuild on the fly(since it keeps working even if one drive fails), the rebuild time itself does not significantly impact system availability. Gone are the days when a rebuild has to be done while the system is down.
A search engine doesn't mind losing data, most of the storage is essentially just a cache or summary of the internet and can be regenerated. That said, Google already have so many mirrors for performance reasons that actual data loss is practically impossible.
I use RAID6 for several high-volume machines at work. Having double parity plus a hot spare means rebuild time is no worry.
But if you are not a fan you can always throw something together with ZFS's RAIDZ or RAIDZ2 which is also distributed parity but the ZFS filesystem checksums and keeps multiple (distributed) copies of every block to detect and fix data corruption before it becomes a bigger problem.
People using ZFS have been able to detect silent data corruption from a faulty power supply that other solutions would never have found just because of the checksumming process.
Is he saying that you can never read a whole hard disk because it will fail before you get to the end?
That's what it seems like he's saying but my hard disks usually last for years of continuous so I'm not sure it's true.
No sig today...
Don't discourage the boy. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals
--AlexC
Just because I dont agree with climate change doesnt make me a troll
And then like AOL, Google goes out of business (shocker I know) and all your data is lost forever. The cloud is good for a lot of stuff, but for data storage it should be part of the solution, not 100% of it.
Not from weasels, though...
Here's what I want, folks:
A 5.25 inch device with 5 double-sided platters running at 5400 RPM. Basically the same size as a desktop CD/DVD drive, ala Quantum Bigfoot.
I want 8 sides of the platters dedicated to data, and the other two sides dedicated to parity (or one parity and the other servo), essentially a self-contained RAID on a single disk.
I want all data heads to write and read simultaneously, in Parallel. The idea is to have 64 byte sectors on each platter which are recombined into a 512-byte result. 8 heads writing and reading in paralell means HUGE throughput for sequential operations.
It's RAID 5 or 6 on a single disk, although without spindle redundancy.
And I also want a high-performance option: 2 sets of read/write heads 180 degrees apart, which effectively would cut seek times in half, making the drive perform more like a 10k RPM drive. With current densities, that's 12 TB in the volume of a DVD drive. It solves speed, sector error recovery and capacity issues. The only thing missing is a data bus that can handle the throughput.
You are absolutely correct in that the mainframe world has dealt with all of the modern recovery issues. But think of the actual USE of storage these days. What used to be a colossal database is now just a bunch of a bunch of home videos from my camcorder. Not only has the cost of storage dropped to nearly nothing, the threshold for using it has dropped even lower. I'm perfectly willing to commit a few megabytes every time I push the button on my digital camera. I remember college, where my mainframe disk quota was a mere 256K.
Today's challenge is to get mainframe-class recovery without bringing back to mainframe-style prices. Some of this is controlled by the way we USE data storage. And then there is all the "savings" we get from server consolidation. Everything we do to consolidate just makes storage management a bigger headache. The trick is to evolve not just the low-level, "invisible" management of storage, but the high level applications as well. If I don't truly NEED to have 10TB on a single mount point, perhaps I should have multiple volumes, distribute my storage, and find a way to be happy with twenty 500GB volumes instead. The easiest way to avoid the recovery time of a 10TB RAID set is to not build one.
I was in mainframe IT long before RAID was commonplace. We commonly faced limits of 450MB on indexed files, because that's as much as you could get from a hard drive back in the early 1980's. Modern Oracle DBAs must be scratching their heads at all of the tablespace management options that seem so redundant when you have RAID storage. This was the pre-RAID method of storage management, in which database container files could be of any size, mounted anywhere, and utilized in all sorts of creative ways to circumvent the hardware limitations of storage in those days. Today, it represents little more than an opportunity to inadvertently bring out the worst of both worlds by setting up these two storage methodologies in conflict with each other.
Having worked with plenty of enterprise grade raid (EMC symetrix, clarion, and Dell SAN devices) I can say that capacity and rebuild times are not a problem for high-end arrays.
What will bring the problem to the masses are these stupid consumer NAS boxes. It is very easy to build a 4 or 8 TB array for home use using relatively cheap hardware. Unfortunately, no home user/abuser, that I know, has the skill set to manage or protect such a large array of data.
My most recent experience with a Western Digital sharespace was awful. Here is a box with a Gigabit NIC, and 4 - 2TB hard drives in a RAID 5 array that has transfer rates around 9MB/sec at best. Combine that pitiful performance with a rebuild/reformat time of over two days - and you know where this is going.
Average joes are going to put their entire lives on these things and never back them up due to the time and space cost. When a failure does occur - it will take days to perform a rebuild of the array - vastly increasing the likelyhood of another failure and permanent data loss.
Crappy RAID's days are numbered - good RAID implementations will be with us as long as hard drives have ANY failure rate at all.
-ted
Who says there are no errors with optical media?
I've seen a CD with light shining through after 5 years.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
The chart he's using goes from SCSI, to fiberchannel, to SAS... to SATA. When you go from professional/server interfaces to hobby/desktop ones, of course the rebuild time skyrockets. If you did this article a few years ago and slid ATA in as the last data point instead of fiberchannel, you'd be seeing the knee showing up then instead of now. How about looking at 2010 and doing the calculations with 6 Gb SAS interconnect and 3 Gb drives, instead of 1.5 Gb SATA and 1 Gb drives?
Consider Google Docs.
If you have so much data that you're likely to encounter an error when rebuilding your RAID array, I don't think Google Docs is going to cut it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Filling the drive with helium should help; the speed of sound in helium is 3x higher than in air, and it offers less resistance.
(Hydrogen would be even better, but it has a tendency to interact with metals in unfortunate ways.)
Faster to just copy it to a usb key. You have multiple copies of your data, and no longer have to worry about network latency, or even if there IS a network available.
The sealed drives we use now showed up in the '80s. Before that the platters were not part of the drive, they were in a plastic cover to keep the dust off. On the mainframes the cover held a stack of platter; on the minis there was just one or two 5mb platters inside. We would place the whole stack with cover into the drive, then rotate the handle to pull the cover out, leaving the spindle of platters in the drive. Then just close the dorr and push the button to spin it up.
In either those old open ones or the "new" sealed ones, the head flies on a cushion of air, but the distance from head to platter is microspic; a piece of dust is big in comparison. In the old open drives, if the head hit even a tiny piece of dirt, it could "crash" into the platter and gouge out a rip. If you haven't heard it, it was actually fairly loud and startling.