From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: What layout with 6x2TB, Intel Atom? Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 03:12:32 +0600 Message-ID: <20130205031232.61813f6c@natsu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/Rj/AUCqPhQ=/QXorMHt9Ty2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mathias =?UTF-8?B?QnVyw6lu?= Cc: Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/Rj/AUCqPhQ=/QXorMHt9Ty2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:27:42 +0000 Mathias Bur=C3=A9n wrote: > I read that the far layout gives faster read performance compared to > standard RAID1 in a 2 HDD array, so that's why I used it. I then > created yet another RAID10 f2 layout of the 3x 2 disk RAID10 volumes, > giving me /dev/md124. Filesystem doesn't matter, I need something > that's stable with good performance over the RAID set. > I just realized that out of 12 TB raw space I now only have 3TB > available, heh. So I suppose I'm going for a different layout. >=20 > Any opinions? Hello, Why won't you even consider RAID6? To me it seems like the perfect choice, given the details you described (mostly reads, large files, few clients). And the disk count is perfect, not too few and not too many, so to say :D --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/Rj/AUCqPhQ=/QXorMHt9Ty2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlEQJEAACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjzdwCeILe+ZKUf2faQ3Rt50UpGyIWF xwUAoIGqsDbZrmMJfiCGPIop84F7dNNJ =vRCz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Rj/AUCqPhQ=/QXorMHt9Ty2--