From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keld =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Simonsen Subject: Re: Upgrading a software RAID Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 02:17:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20090531001730.GA16311@rap.rap.dk> References: <4A1EA095.9090406@usherbrooke.ca> <4A217BA8.1080208@tmr.com> <4A217C6C.7080301@usherbrooke.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A217C6C.7080301@usherbrooke.ca> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Maxime Boissonneault Cc: Bill Davidsen , robin@robinhill.me.uk, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:35:24PM -0400, Maxime Boissonneault wrote: > >>> >>> I can not install more drives in the computer. It is a home theater >>> computer in a small case. I was expecting to be able to let the raid >>> manage the copies itself. >>> >>> If the / was on a RAID5, would it be able to boot with 2 disks ? >>> If so, is it possible to convert my RAID0 to a RAID5 ? >>> For example, I could boot on a CD, backup / onto /home, delete the >>> RAID0 array and recreate it as RAID5, then restore the backup. Would >>> this work ? >> >> Based on my testing (somewhat old now) and regular use, I would say >> raid10 is probably your best bet. It's fast and secure, and with the >> -f2 option for "far" copies it's able to give high transfer rates. > > Doesn't RAID10 means RAID 1+0, which requires 4 disks ? Linux RAID10 is somewhat different from raid1+0, and can run with just 2 disks, with fine performance for reads in the F2 layout, almost raid0 performance, while write performance is close to raid1, with a file system in operation. Best regards keld