From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Thompson Subject: Re: raid 10f2 vs 1 on 2 drives Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:25:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20120523112545.GN27769@electro-mechanical.com> References: <20120522193340.GM27769@electro-mechanical.com> <4FBC14DC.8070007@hesbynett.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FBC14DC.8070007@hesbynett.no> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Brown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:36:12AM +0200, David Brown wrote: > On 22/05/12 21:33, William Thompson wrote: > >I understand that raid 10 f2 is slower on writes due to the location of the > >2nd copy. My question is, if lots of writes are performed, could this > >layout wearout the drives quicker than raid 1? > > No, wear is not going to be significantly different. > > You didn't say whether you are talking about hard disks (where Sorry about that (Chief). Yes, I was refering to hard drives. > location makes a difference, but "wear" on the drive motor is > insignificant to the disk's expected lifetime), or flash disks I was thinking about how much more head movement there would be to write the 2nd copy of the data. > (where people often worry about "wear", though location is > irrelevant and wear is also irrelevant for most uses of all but the > most cheapo disks).