From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Smith Subject: Re: 4 disks: RAID-6 or RAID-10 .. Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:31:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20060217153132.GA32687@strugglers.net> References: <43F5B707.3030005@panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="g0ROHtn9LWMmDMkC" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --g0ROHtn9LWMmDMkC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:14:37PM +0000, Gordon Henderson wrote: > Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand > (any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times > now, I'm begining to think it can't (unless you are lucky!) So maybe I'll > just stick with Raid-6 as I know that! RAID-10 cannot survive the failure of *any* two disks as if two disks in one of the mirrors died then the whole mirror would be lost which loses you a segment of the upper stripe. *If* a second disk dies, then with 4 didks total you have 50% chance of it being the one you're relying on. If you require to withstand the loss of *any* two disks then you need RAID-6. --=20 http://strugglers.net/wiki/Xen_hosting -- A Xen VPS hosting hobby Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB --g0ROHtn9LWMmDMkC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD9exUIJm2TL8VSQsRAt5bAJ9AjosQrxOCr5aXuG1XuXvwQCoOAQCeJy2U bCUtTPKaUxuWJXCp2BWHZWc= =QW1m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --g0ROHtn9LWMmDMkC--