Rebuild options in RAID5 disk arrays
Alexander Thomasian
Abstract
Alexander Thomasian
Abstract
The response time of disk accesses in RAID5 disk arrays degrades when one of the N+1 disks fails and there is a further degradation by the interference caused by rebuild processing. In addition to giving user accesses a higher non-preemptive priority over track reads for rebuild, we consider: (i) the read redirection option; (ii) split-seek option, i.e., allowing user requests to preempt track reads after a seek is completed; (iii) the split-latency/transfer option, i.e., allowing user requests to preempt track reads, Simulation results show that for lower disk utilizations the split-latency/transfer option is desirable in that it reduces response time, while not increasing rebuild time considerably. At higher disk utilizations the response time attained by the split-latency transfer option is comparable to that attained by less preemptive options with shorter rebuild times. A new metric, excess cumulative response time, is defined to compare the efficiency of rebuild options.
OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The response time of disk accesses in RAID5 disk arrays degrades when one of the N+1 disks fails and there is a further degradation by the interference caused by rebuild processing. In addition to giving user accesses a higher non-preemptive priority over track reads for rebuild, we consider: (i) the read redirection option; (ii) split-seek option, i.e., allowing user requests to preempt track reads after a seek is completed; (iii) the split-latency/transfer option, i.e., allowing user requests to preempt track reads, Simulation results show that for lower disk utilizations the split-latency/transfer option is desirable in that it reduces response time, while not increasing rebuild time considerably. At higher disk utilizations the response time attained by the split-latency transfer option is comparable to that attained by less preemptive options with shorter rebuild times. A new metric, excess cumulative response time, is defined to compare the efficiency of rebuild options.
Key concepts: Latency (audio), Computer science, Hard disk drive performance characteristics, Transfer (computing), Track (disk drive), Response time, Real-time computing, Operating system