From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: RAID 10 / 2 Devices Layout question Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:25:02 +0500 Message-ID: <20160628142502.7e69983d@natsu> References: <5770120D.9050809@turmel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/2RLjwLt4GpyzOjXebTg5Aq4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5770120D.9050809@turmel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phil Turmel Cc: Paul Roland , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/2RLjwLt4GpyzOjXebTg5Aq4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 13:34:05 -0400 Phil Turmel wrote: > On 06/26/2016 01:20 PM, Paul Roland wrote: >=20 > > I have two SSDs, and I would like to use md/raid10 (2devices) for > > performance reasons. >=20 > Ok, that's reasonable. Maybe I'm missing something, but how is a RAID10 of just two devices is considered reasonable without any questions or explanation? What is the act= ual layout that is expected here, and what benefits (or even differences) does = it have compared to RAID0? I thought you need at least 3 devices (and h/w RAID controllers might even require 4) for RAID10 to start making sense. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/2RLjwLt4GpyzOjXebTg5Aq4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAldyQnAACgkQTLKSvz+PZwgqSgCfW5kyJZd/99tIuyjH5Ks9RID4 EMEAnAheFlb9NIfd5JhyiGVBI40wece+ =xpQL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/2RLjwLt4GpyzOjXebTg5Aq4--