Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've been trying to determine what the correct stripe width for a RAID-50 volume is but haven't been successful in google searches or empirical tests. The volume is built off of 4 disk spans that contain 6 disks each. If I understand it correctly, each individual span is a RAID-5 volume and the 4 spans are combined using RAID-0. However, I'm not seeing any noticable effect when I vary the stripe-width from 2-20. Suggestions?

share|improve this question
What are you trying to accomplish? What do you expect? And why do you even care about stripe widths? – mailq Aug 6 '11 at 18:59
R50? was R10 too fast and effective for you? – Chopper3 Aug 6 '11 at 19:10
@Chopper3 He wants to save disc capacity. That's OK. – mailq Aug 6 '11 at 21:24
Why not just go RAID 6? – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams Aug 6 '11 at 21:51
@mailq: No it isn't. Disks are cheap. If you need more capacity, buy more disks. RAID-50 is an unacceptable risk. – womble Aug 6 '11 at 22:56

While I realize that this is over a year old, I recently ran into the same question and came to a different conclusion and wanted to add it for posterity.

Unfortunately I think the FusionIO article mentioned here may be wrong. First, their table shows that to find the number of data bearing disks on a raid50 you take the number of "mirrored_sets" and subtract one. However it also has this text near the table:

  • mirrored_sets = The number of raid 1 mirrored sets that are used to form the higher- level group

The problem is that raid50 doesn't have any "raid 1 mirrored sets", and the whole idea just sounds kind of, funny.

The larger reason though is that I came across a more recent thread that included input from an ext guru (Andreas Dilger). The explanation on that thread made a lot more sense to me, even before considering reputation.

You can find that here, but I'm going to paste the key part below for good measure...

>> DS: Based on my understanding of what stride and stripe-width set,
>> it seems to me that it should be calculated the same as it would
>> be if there were no multiple-level RAIDing involved.  For example,
>> given a RAID 50 made up of two 3+1 RAID 5s striped together (so 8
>> disks total) with a 512k chunk size and 4k block size, the stride
>> should be 128 (512 / 4) and the stripe-width should be 768
>> (stride * 6 data disks).
> AD: Strictly speaking, you only need a stripe-width of 384 (stride * 3
> data disks) since this is the minimum read-modify-write boundary.

Ah, right.  Thanks, I was over-thinking it.

HTH, Mark

share|improve this answer

After digging around online, I found this line ( that indicated the stripe width in nested RAID levels should be based on the number of spans/groups. In my case, as I have 4 spans in RAID50, the stripe width (as used in XFS), is 3 (n-1, where n is the number of spans)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.