From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA596C43334 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:42:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235437AbiF0SmA (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:42:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39548 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235212AbiF0Sl7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:41:59 -0400 Received: from mail.thelounge.net (mail.thelounge.net [91.118.73.15]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008AEB25 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.10.2] (rh.vpn.thelounge.net [10.10.10.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: h.reindl@thelounge.net) by mail.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE MTA) with ESMTPSA id 4LWxQr5wK5zXMm; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:41:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4b90d4e6-186c-23ea-78be-c507bcc04427@thelounge.net> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:41:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: what's wrong with RAID-10? (was "Re: moving a working array") Content-Language: en-US To: Wols Lists , David T-G , Linux-RAID References: <7683b644cf076f8db06d60fdd3e4f88424f35bd2.camel@gmail.com> <92378403-adf6-dedb-828c-81b331c1d8c1@youngman.org.uk> <20220627104109.GJ18273@justpickone.org> From: Reindl Harald Organization: the lounge interactive design In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Am 27.06.22 um 17:10 schrieb Wols Lists: > On 27/06/2022 11:41, David T-G wrote: >> Wol, et al -- >> >> ...and then Wols Lists said... >> % >> % On 24/06/2022 15:09, Wilson Jonathan wrote: >> % > On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 08:38 -0500, o1bigtenor wrote: >> % > > >> % > > I have a working (no issues) raid-10 array in one box. >> % >> % Bummer. It's a raid-10. A raid-1 would have been easier. >> [snip] >> >> This tripped me.  I presumed that the reason for -10, not least because >> he also said "these 4 drives", was because the array space is bigger than >> just one hard drive size, ie 6T on 4ea 3T drives.  How would RAID-1 work >> for that storage?  And why would it be easier than RAID-10? >> > Just that raid-1 would have been a simple case of two drives, each a > backup of the other. Keep one safe, put the other in the new system. > > With raid-10, it's much more complicated - you can't just do that :-( you can easily do that with RAID10 * just buy replacement disks * pull out two disks * look if it boots * if not pull a different out * rebuild the array with the new disks * put the other two disks with two blank ones in the other box * rebuild the array in the other box * voila you have two indetical redundant machines frankly i cloned machines by intention that way