From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plug bert Subject: question about RAID10 near and far layouts Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:26:04 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <1339377964.38410.YahooMailClassic@web190004.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids hi peeps, i've been reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels and just wanted to verify if my understanding is correct. Is "near" safer than "far"? e.g. given 4 drives in RAID10 array, n2: 4 drives 1 2 3 4 -------------- A1 A1 A2 A2 A3 A3 A4 A4 A5 A5 A6 A6 A7 A7 A8 A8 you'd lose the array if either 1&2 or 3&4 goes down at the same time. With 4 drives in RAID10 array, f2: 4 drives 1 2 3 4 -------------------- A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 .. .. .. .. A4 A1 A2 A3 A8 A5 A6 A7 A12 A9 A10 A11 ...there seems to be a lot more combinations that can result in a trashed array(1&2, 2&3, 3&4). Is my analysis correct? Inputs are more than welcome, tia