From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.12]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oATFTUZs012467 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:29:30 -0500 Received: from www2.open-std.org (www.open-std.org [83.133.64.141]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oATFTHEI008300 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:29:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:29:16 +0100 From: Keld =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Simonsen Message-ID: <20101129152916.GB13310@www2.open-std.org> References: <2D.98.07087.690A2FC4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM over RAID, or plain disks? A:"Yes" = best of both worlds? Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: hansbkk@gmail.com Cc: Leslie Rhorer , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-lvm@redhat.com On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:01:11PM +0700, hansbkk@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Leslie Rhorer wrote: > >> - I am not at this point overly concerned about performance issues - > >> reliability/redundancy and ease of recovery are my main priorities. > > > > � � � �In that case, I'm not sure about your desire for the additional > > complexity. �Someone else suggested RAID6, which from an operational > > standpoint is much simpler. �The main reason, it seems to me, for the more > > complex topologies would be enhancing perfromance. > > I can see how RAID6 is simpler than RAID10, but compared to RAID1? Hmm, does not compute by me. RAID1 and RAID10 are the same in complexity, RAID10 is just a modern RAID1, and should actually have been called RAID1. best regards keld