From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: md road-map: 2011 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:55:05 +1100 Message-ID: <20110217085505.1deec298@notabene.brown> References: <20110216212751.51a294aa@notabene.brown> <4D5BB4EA.8030907@texsoft.it> <20110216140024.GA18707@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roberto Spadim Cc: Giovanni Tessore , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:21:50 -0300 Roberto Spadim wrote: > since we have the option1 done, why continue with raid1 code? could we > port write-behind to raid10 code? No. write-behind depends on write-mostly, and write-mostly only really makes sense for RAID1. I much prefer to keep these two code bases separate. > another thing, could raid10 work without replica? like a raid0? Why don't you try it? Choose a layout that asks for only 1 copy of the data. It should work. > > why? just to remove many files with the same function (raid1and raid0, > if raid10 do the same work, many some mdadm changes allow us to > --level=1 to understand that's raid10 without stripe, --level=0 is > raid10 without mirrors) Again, RAID0 has some features that RAID10 doesn'tand cannot. I suggest you read man pages (e.g. 'man md') to find out the details. Also the RAID0 code is much simpler and hence possibly faster. NeilBrown