In the fifties and early sixties, year over year automobile progress was being written in terms of front grille chrome and whitewall tires. Menial topics such as occupant safety were off-limits, unmentionable. You simply didn’t want to risk scaring off potential buyers of your latest shiny gas guzzler. Until one company did and started talking up safety in its marketing and advertising. Volvo. It mentioned the unmentionable and in doing so totally transformed the market as well as the perception of the automobile. The fact reflects onto the Volvo brand until this day.
I often think we may need a similar shock to happen in the storage industry. No storage vendor will ever spontaneously mention data loss, even though in terms of reality it’s right up there with death and taxes. It will happen, period. There are just two things about it that we can influence to a certain extent: probability and size, which are simply two sides of the same coin.
Now strangely enough, people really only seem concerned with the former of the two: probability of “something” happening. As in the question: “in your storage system, how many simultaneous disk failures can you afford before you sustain any data loss?”. An interesting question indeed, as it totally disregards the other question of **exactly how much** data you lose when you do.
For example, take a file system on a RAID configuration consisting of 5 drives plus 1 parity drive. Can take any single disk failure without data loss, with just 20% overhead. Nice. Except: lose another drive during recovery and you just lost everything. 100%. Bet you knew already.
Now consider this: use the same drives in a CAStor object storage cluster configuration, and specify two replicas for each object stored. Contrary to popular belief, you’ll be able to store about the same (!) net amount of data ( because of CAStor’s avoidance of filesystem related overhead at multiple levels – details in our white paper at http://goo.gl/4F9Bb ). Lose a drive. No sweat, no data loss. Lose a second drive during recovery. Oops. Data loss. But how much? Less than 3.3% of the objects. 1.7% on average (*). Whole objects, not fragments. While the integrity of the remaining objects remains unaffected and guaranteed.
Summarizing: same disks, same events. First question: data loss? Yes, in both cases. Second question: how much? 100% in one, 1.7% in the other.
So now, how many disks can you afford to lose? Make sure you ask the second question.
– Paul
(*) It’s easy to compute: 2 replicas of each object, spread over 6 drives, with replicas of the same object always on different drives. Have one drive fail. Now one sixth of the objects are at risk i.e., without replica. Now have another drive fail: one fifth of the aforementioned objects will be affected and have no replicas left – a data loss of one fifth of a sixth i.e., 3.33%. That latter value is a maximum that is only valid if both failures happen at exactly the same moment. If they don’t, some recovery will already have taken place. That sliding window effect reduces the average loss to half of the maximum i.e. 1.67%.
BTW, if computing data loss probabilities triggers that funny feeling in your stomach, please remember that CAStor will gladly maintain 3, 4 or more replicas, selectable on a per object basis and automatically varying over the life cycle of the object. Hey, your choice.