RAID 5 parity bits - recovering data
This is an old topic but I have a question about RAID 5 parity bits that confuse me.
My question is:
So that, in every explanation of RAID 5, it is said that RAID 5 has parity bit in every disk. And in every demonstration, all sources shows raid 5 like:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure a
Internet sources that demonstrate RAID 5 shows that, every disk has a Parity bit (only 1) in their blocks. This makes sense in 4 disk 4 block scenario because if for example disk 4 fails, we can recover all of the data's because we got the exact amount of parity bits to recover all the data that is lost in disk 4.
But, in order to recover the data in more blocked disks (for example 8 blocks), the picture should be like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure b
The thing is, as I mentioned, all the sources says that RAID 5 has 1 parity bit in every disk as I showed in figure a. However, in order to recover data from 8 blocked storage for example, we need something like Figure b. , so that there is 2 parity information in 1 disk (Parity information should be more if there is more disks). But, the RAID 5 explanations doesn't explain it like that and also there is RAID 6 configurations whose speciality is to have 2 parity bit. So this scenario is all wrong.
The correct picture should look like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Figure c
In this scenario, the RAID 5's explanation is accurate. Again lets assume that disk 4 is dead. How is the data in the 5,6,7 and 8th block in disk 4 will be recovered?
My assumption is, the raid-controller takes 1 parity bit (for example; disk 1's parity bit) and after that, from the 5th blocks of disks (5,6,7,8th block of 2,3rd disk), it XOR's the parity bit of the 1st disk's parity(4th block of 1st disk (parity)) and the data's in 5,6,7,8th blocks of disk 2 and 3.
So that, raid-controller can take a random parity bit and XOR the 1,2,3rd disk's data's from the 5,6,7 and 8'th blocks. I guess my assumption is false.
The abstract of the question is, How RAID 5 handles the parity bits and recovers the data with 8 block disks?
Thank you all for your concern.
My sources are:
https://datapacket.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-various-raid-levels/
https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/RAID
http://sort.symantec.com/public/documents/sfha/6.2/aix/productguides/html/sfcfs_admin/ch03s03s09.htm
https://blog.open-e.com/how-does-raid-5-work/
http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/library/raid-5-6.aspx
raid storage raid-5 recovery
add a comment |
This is an old topic but I have a question about RAID 5 parity bits that confuse me.
My question is:
So that, in every explanation of RAID 5, it is said that RAID 5 has parity bit in every disk. And in every demonstration, all sources shows raid 5 like:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure a
Internet sources that demonstrate RAID 5 shows that, every disk has a Parity bit (only 1) in their blocks. This makes sense in 4 disk 4 block scenario because if for example disk 4 fails, we can recover all of the data's because we got the exact amount of parity bits to recover all the data that is lost in disk 4.
But, in order to recover the data in more blocked disks (for example 8 blocks), the picture should be like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure b
The thing is, as I mentioned, all the sources says that RAID 5 has 1 parity bit in every disk as I showed in figure a. However, in order to recover data from 8 blocked storage for example, we need something like Figure b. , so that there is 2 parity information in 1 disk (Parity information should be more if there is more disks). But, the RAID 5 explanations doesn't explain it like that and also there is RAID 6 configurations whose speciality is to have 2 parity bit. So this scenario is all wrong.
The correct picture should look like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Figure c
In this scenario, the RAID 5's explanation is accurate. Again lets assume that disk 4 is dead. How is the data in the 5,6,7 and 8th block in disk 4 will be recovered?
My assumption is, the raid-controller takes 1 parity bit (for example; disk 1's parity bit) and after that, from the 5th blocks of disks (5,6,7,8th block of 2,3rd disk), it XOR's the parity bit of the 1st disk's parity(4th block of 1st disk (parity)) and the data's in 5,6,7,8th blocks of disk 2 and 3.
So that, raid-controller can take a random parity bit and XOR the 1,2,3rd disk's data's from the 5,6,7 and 8'th blocks. I guess my assumption is false.
The abstract of the question is, How RAID 5 handles the parity bits and recovers the data with 8 block disks?
Thank you all for your concern.
My sources are:
https://datapacket.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-various-raid-levels/
https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/RAID
http://sort.symantec.com/public/documents/sfha/6.2/aix/productguides/html/sfcfs_admin/ch03s03s09.htm
https://blog.open-e.com/how-does-raid-5-work/
http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/library/raid-5-6.aspx
raid storage raid-5 recovery
I would say the Figure b is right. Can you cite from and link to these sources you refer to? Please edit the question.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Jan 22 at 10:44
@KamilMaciorowski I have added my sources. I have looked at this topic from some other sources and videos as well but I couldn't find them right now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:16
@KamilMaciorowski If figure b is correct, what is the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 6? Because RAID 6's speciality is to have 2 parity bits in 1 disk. Also If figure b is correct, if the disk has more blocks such as 16 or sth, 1 disk should have 4 parity-bit. It is not true for the definition of RAID 5 I guess
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:17
add a comment |
This is an old topic but I have a question about RAID 5 parity bits that confuse me.
My question is:
So that, in every explanation of RAID 5, it is said that RAID 5 has parity bit in every disk. And in every demonstration, all sources shows raid 5 like:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure a
Internet sources that demonstrate RAID 5 shows that, every disk has a Parity bit (only 1) in their blocks. This makes sense in 4 disk 4 block scenario because if for example disk 4 fails, we can recover all of the data's because we got the exact amount of parity bits to recover all the data that is lost in disk 4.
But, in order to recover the data in more blocked disks (for example 8 blocks), the picture should be like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure b
The thing is, as I mentioned, all the sources says that RAID 5 has 1 parity bit in every disk as I showed in figure a. However, in order to recover data from 8 blocked storage for example, we need something like Figure b. , so that there is 2 parity information in 1 disk (Parity information should be more if there is more disks). But, the RAID 5 explanations doesn't explain it like that and also there is RAID 6 configurations whose speciality is to have 2 parity bit. So this scenario is all wrong.
The correct picture should look like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Figure c
In this scenario, the RAID 5's explanation is accurate. Again lets assume that disk 4 is dead. How is the data in the 5,6,7 and 8th block in disk 4 will be recovered?
My assumption is, the raid-controller takes 1 parity bit (for example; disk 1's parity bit) and after that, from the 5th blocks of disks (5,6,7,8th block of 2,3rd disk), it XOR's the parity bit of the 1st disk's parity(4th block of 1st disk (parity)) and the data's in 5,6,7,8th blocks of disk 2 and 3.
So that, raid-controller can take a random parity bit and XOR the 1,2,3rd disk's data's from the 5,6,7 and 8'th blocks. I guess my assumption is false.
The abstract of the question is, How RAID 5 handles the parity bits and recovers the data with 8 block disks?
Thank you all for your concern.
My sources are:
https://datapacket.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-various-raid-levels/
https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/RAID
http://sort.symantec.com/public/documents/sfha/6.2/aix/productguides/html/sfcfs_admin/ch03s03s09.htm
https://blog.open-e.com/how-does-raid-5-work/
http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/library/raid-5-6.aspx
raid storage raid-5 recovery
This is an old topic but I have a question about RAID 5 parity bits that confuse me.
My question is:
So that, in every explanation of RAID 5, it is said that RAID 5 has parity bit in every disk. And in every demonstration, all sources shows raid 5 like:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure a
Internet sources that demonstrate RAID 5 shows that, every disk has a Parity bit (only 1) in their blocks. This makes sense in 4 disk 4 block scenario because if for example disk 4 fails, we can recover all of the data's because we got the exact amount of parity bits to recover all the data that is lost in disk 4.
But, in order to recover the data in more blocked disks (for example 8 blocks), the picture should be like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Figure b
The thing is, as I mentioned, all the sources says that RAID 5 has 1 parity bit in every disk as I showed in figure a. However, in order to recover data from 8 blocked storage for example, we need something like Figure b. , so that there is 2 parity information in 1 disk (Parity information should be more if there is more disks). But, the RAID 5 explanations doesn't explain it like that and also there is RAID 6 configurations whose speciality is to have 2 parity bit. So this scenario is all wrong.
The correct picture should look like this:
Disk 1 | Disk 2 | Disk 3 | Disk 4
Data Data Data Parity
Data Data Parity Data
Data Parity Data Data
Parity Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Data Data Data Data
Figure c
In this scenario, the RAID 5's explanation is accurate. Again lets assume that disk 4 is dead. How is the data in the 5,6,7 and 8th block in disk 4 will be recovered?
My assumption is, the raid-controller takes 1 parity bit (for example; disk 1's parity bit) and after that, from the 5th blocks of disks (5,6,7,8th block of 2,3rd disk), it XOR's the parity bit of the 1st disk's parity(4th block of 1st disk (parity)) and the data's in 5,6,7,8th blocks of disk 2 and 3.
So that, raid-controller can take a random parity bit and XOR the 1,2,3rd disk's data's from the 5,6,7 and 8'th blocks. I guess my assumption is false.
The abstract of the question is, How RAID 5 handles the parity bits and recovers the data with 8 block disks?
Thank you all for your concern.
My sources are:
https://datapacket.com/blog/advantages-disadvantages-various-raid-levels/
https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/RAID
http://sort.symantec.com/public/documents/sfha/6.2/aix/productguides/html/sfcfs_admin/ch03s03s09.htm
https://blog.open-e.com/how-does-raid-5-work/
http://www.freeraidrecovery.com/library/raid-5-6.aspx
raid storage raid-5 recovery
raid storage raid-5 recovery
edited Jan 22 at 13:13
G.Baysec
asked Jan 22 at 10:30
G.BaysecG.Baysec
83
83
I would say the Figure b is right. Can you cite from and link to these sources you refer to? Please edit the question.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Jan 22 at 10:44
@KamilMaciorowski I have added my sources. I have looked at this topic from some other sources and videos as well but I couldn't find them right now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:16
@KamilMaciorowski If figure b is correct, what is the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 6? Because RAID 6's speciality is to have 2 parity bits in 1 disk. Also If figure b is correct, if the disk has more blocks such as 16 or sth, 1 disk should have 4 parity-bit. It is not true for the definition of RAID 5 I guess
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:17
add a comment |
I would say the Figure b is right. Can you cite from and link to these sources you refer to? Please edit the question.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Jan 22 at 10:44
@KamilMaciorowski I have added my sources. I have looked at this topic from some other sources and videos as well but I couldn't find them right now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:16
@KamilMaciorowski If figure b is correct, what is the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 6? Because RAID 6's speciality is to have 2 parity bits in 1 disk. Also If figure b is correct, if the disk has more blocks such as 16 or sth, 1 disk should have 4 parity-bit. It is not true for the definition of RAID 5 I guess
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:17
I would say the Figure b is right. Can you cite from and link to these sources you refer to? Please edit the question.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Jan 22 at 10:44
I would say the Figure b is right. Can you cite from and link to these sources you refer to? Please edit the question.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Jan 22 at 10:44
@KamilMaciorowski I have added my sources. I have looked at this topic from some other sources and videos as well but I couldn't find them right now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:16
@KamilMaciorowski I have added my sources. I have looked at this topic from some other sources and videos as well but I couldn't find them right now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:16
@KamilMaciorowski If figure b is correct, what is the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 6? Because RAID 6's speciality is to have 2 parity bits in 1 disk. Also If figure b is correct, if the disk has more blocks such as 16 or sth, 1 disk should have 4 parity-bit. It is not true for the definition of RAID 5 I guess
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:17
@KamilMaciorowski If figure b is correct, what is the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 6? Because RAID 6's speciality is to have 2 parity bits in 1 disk. Also If figure b is correct, if the disk has more blocks such as 16 or sth, 1 disk should have 4 parity-bit. It is not true for the definition of RAID 5 I guess
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Figure b is the right one.
First of all, you used the word "bit" for "block". Bit is either 0 or 1. We're talking about "data blocks" and "parity blocks" (or "parity units", depending on the source, whatever; but not just single "bits"). Blocks in theory may be 1-bit in size but in practice 512 bytes is the minimum, since this is the common sector size of block devices.
One of your sources contains a picture of three disks and four stripes creating RAID 5. One of the disks contains two parity blocks (this obviously contradicts with your figure c). Then the article reads:
Every stripe has a column containing a parity stripe unit and columns containing data. The parity is spread over all of the disks in the array [...]
(To be clear: in your figures a stripe is a single line like Data Data Parity Data
).
This means every stripe (not "every disk"!) has exactly one parity block in RAID 5 (in RAID 6 every stripe has exactly two parity blocks). If one disk fails (up to two disks for RAID 6), each stripe contains enough information to rebuild the missing part of this particular stripe independently from other stripes.
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1396954%2fraid-5-parity-bits-recovering-data%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Figure b is the right one.
First of all, you used the word "bit" for "block". Bit is either 0 or 1. We're talking about "data blocks" and "parity blocks" (or "parity units", depending on the source, whatever; but not just single "bits"). Blocks in theory may be 1-bit in size but in practice 512 bytes is the minimum, since this is the common sector size of block devices.
One of your sources contains a picture of three disks and four stripes creating RAID 5. One of the disks contains two parity blocks (this obviously contradicts with your figure c). Then the article reads:
Every stripe has a column containing a parity stripe unit and columns containing data. The parity is spread over all of the disks in the array [...]
(To be clear: in your figures a stripe is a single line like Data Data Parity Data
).
This means every stripe (not "every disk"!) has exactly one parity block in RAID 5 (in RAID 6 every stripe has exactly two parity blocks). If one disk fails (up to two disks for RAID 6), each stripe contains enough information to rebuild the missing part of this particular stripe independently from other stripes.
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
add a comment |
Figure b is the right one.
First of all, you used the word "bit" for "block". Bit is either 0 or 1. We're talking about "data blocks" and "parity blocks" (or "parity units", depending on the source, whatever; but not just single "bits"). Blocks in theory may be 1-bit in size but in practice 512 bytes is the minimum, since this is the common sector size of block devices.
One of your sources contains a picture of three disks and four stripes creating RAID 5. One of the disks contains two parity blocks (this obviously contradicts with your figure c). Then the article reads:
Every stripe has a column containing a parity stripe unit and columns containing data. The parity is spread over all of the disks in the array [...]
(To be clear: in your figures a stripe is a single line like Data Data Parity Data
).
This means every stripe (not "every disk"!) has exactly one parity block in RAID 5 (in RAID 6 every stripe has exactly two parity blocks). If one disk fails (up to two disks for RAID 6), each stripe contains enough information to rebuild the missing part of this particular stripe independently from other stripes.
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
add a comment |
Figure b is the right one.
First of all, you used the word "bit" for "block". Bit is either 0 or 1. We're talking about "data blocks" and "parity blocks" (or "parity units", depending on the source, whatever; but not just single "bits"). Blocks in theory may be 1-bit in size but in practice 512 bytes is the minimum, since this is the common sector size of block devices.
One of your sources contains a picture of three disks and four stripes creating RAID 5. One of the disks contains two parity blocks (this obviously contradicts with your figure c). Then the article reads:
Every stripe has a column containing a parity stripe unit and columns containing data. The parity is spread over all of the disks in the array [...]
(To be clear: in your figures a stripe is a single line like Data Data Parity Data
).
This means every stripe (not "every disk"!) has exactly one parity block in RAID 5 (in RAID 6 every stripe has exactly two parity blocks). If one disk fails (up to two disks for RAID 6), each stripe contains enough information to rebuild the missing part of this particular stripe independently from other stripes.
Figure b is the right one.
First of all, you used the word "bit" for "block". Bit is either 0 or 1. We're talking about "data blocks" and "parity blocks" (or "parity units", depending on the source, whatever; but not just single "bits"). Blocks in theory may be 1-bit in size but in practice 512 bytes is the minimum, since this is the common sector size of block devices.
One of your sources contains a picture of three disks and four stripes creating RAID 5. One of the disks contains two parity blocks (this obviously contradicts with your figure c). Then the article reads:
Every stripe has a column containing a parity stripe unit and columns containing data. The parity is spread over all of the disks in the array [...]
(To be clear: in your figures a stripe is a single line like Data Data Parity Data
).
This means every stripe (not "every disk"!) has exactly one parity block in RAID 5 (in RAID 6 every stripe has exactly two parity blocks). If one disk fails (up to two disks for RAID 6), each stripe contains enough information to rebuild the missing part of this particular stripe independently from other stripes.
answered Jan 22 at 13:46
Kamil MaciorowskiKamil Maciorowski
27.9k156184
27.9k156184
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
add a comment |
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
So, the misunderstanding is, every stripe has one parity, not every disk. So that, a disk may contain 1 parity for every stripe of data blocks, am I right? Than my figure b is correct.Thank you very much. It all just make sense now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1396954%2fraid-5-parity-bits-recovering-data%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I would say the Figure b is right. Can you cite from and link to these sources you refer to? Please edit the question.
– Kamil Maciorowski
Jan 22 at 10:44
@KamilMaciorowski I have added my sources. I have looked at this topic from some other sources and videos as well but I couldn't find them right now.
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:16
@KamilMaciorowski If figure b is correct, what is the difference between RAID 5 and RAID 6? Because RAID 6's speciality is to have 2 parity bits in 1 disk. Also If figure b is correct, if the disk has more blocks such as 16 or sth, 1 disk should have 4 parity-bit. It is not true for the definition of RAID 5 I guess
– G.Baysec
Jan 22 at 13:17