3 ms·
Oh? When I first saw that illustration it hugely frustrated me about how poor that illustration is. The numbers are not explained, nor are the rows, or columns
by knorker 6y ago
Oh? When I first saw that illustration it hugely frustrated me about how poor that illustration is.
The numbers are not explained, nor are the rows, or columns. And the numbers repeat.
I saw the diagrams first outside of that pdf, though. Still, the way it goes "4, 8, 2, 16, 1, and so on..." is a boatload of "wat?".
- abrookewood 6y agoI think this quote makes it clearer: "unlike the raidz1 configuration shown above, in the dRAID1 configuration the neighbor drives of the failed drive 0 (i.e. drives in a same data+parity group) are not fixed". So the RAIDZ is set up with fixed groups of drives, but the dRAID is not, even though the parity ratio is the same.
- knorker 6y agoYeah, I get it. But the illustrations I found terrible. Those images did not speak a 1000 words. In fact they are just confusing. Your comment explains it better than the illustration.