From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keld =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Simonsen Subject: Re: What's the typical RAID10 setup? Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:33:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20110204133328.GB4808@www2.open-std.org> References: <4D475AB5.10600@hardwarefreak.com> <20110203110428.GA26762@www2.open-std.org> <4D4B3DAE.3070502@hardwarefreak.com> <20110204070613.GA3788@www2.open-std.org> <4D4BB87A.30800@hardwarefreak.com> <20110204090602.GA4017@www2.open-std.org> <4D4BCF3A.1030809@hardwarefreak.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: hansbkk@gmail.com Cc: Stan Hoeppner , Keld =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Simonsen , Jon Nelson , Mathias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bur=E9n?= , Roberto Spadim , Denis , Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 06:15:44PM +0700, hansbkk@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Keld J=F8rn Simonsen put forth on 2/4/2011 3:06 AM: >=20 > >> I dont think SNIA defines RAID 10, which is a specific Linux MD th= ing. > > > > Either you're very young, or don't read what I type, maybe both. ;)= =A0RAID 10 has > > been around for 15+ years. =A0It is not unique to Linux mdraid. =A0= The "alternate > > layouts" of mdraid are unique to Linux/mdraid, but RAID 10 is not u= nique to mdraid. > > > >> For RAID1+0, I think it is covered by the DDF standard > > > > RAID 10 and RAID 1+0 are the same thing by two different names. =A0= It's not > > >=20 > > I'm getting dizzy from the running in circles... >=20 >=20 > Dope-slaps all 'round! >=20 > Again, this problem would just go away if everyone would just refrain > from using "RAID 10" or "RAID10" as if they were meaningful - within > the context of this list, they just cause confusion. >=20 > It seems the mdadm people are willing to use RAID 1+0 for "the other > kind", and the "outsiders" are willing to use "md RAID10", but both > sides would like to claim just plain "RAID10" for themselves, and it'= s > causing endless loops of non-communication! >=20 > Please reply with better alternatives, but IMO "md raid10" and > "raid1+0" are clear enough to be understood by one and all. >=20 > For those of you sick of my ranting on beating a dead horse, I'm sorr= y > but I just can't help keeping on trying to put this behind us - we're > all here for a common cause aren't we? >=20 > I'm not asking you to change any religious beliefs outside the list, > just adopt an enabling convention for discussions here. I can agree with what is said here, at least when we are discussing wit= h somebody like Stan who insists on using terminology, that is easily misunderstood. I do think precise terminology is important. Also I have tried to clean up terminology other places, such as=20 our wiki and in articles elsewhere. I tend to write "Linux MD raid10" in those instances. Best regards keld -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html