From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: md faster than h/w? Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:42:41 +0300 Message-ID: <43C8D5A1.5070004@tls.msk.ru> References: <20060113144640.GA10566@lug.udel.edu> <43C851AD.80006@fastmail.co.uk> <20060114020523.GB24976@lug.udel.edu> <43C8B5A5.5010500@fastmail.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <43C8B5A5.5010500@fastmail.co.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Max Waterman Cc: Ross Vandegrift , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Max Waterman wrote: [] > My preference will probably be raid10 - ie raid0 2 drives, raid0 > another 2 drives, and then raid1 both raid0s. My 5th disk can be a hot > spare. Round reasonable? Nononono. Never do that. Instead, create two raid1s and raid0 both, ie, just the opposite. Think about the two variants, and I hope you'll come to the reason why raid0(2x raid1) is more reliable than raid1(2x raid0). ;) > Alternatively, we could probably get a 6th disk and do raid1 on > disk #5 & #6 and install the OS on that - keeping the application > data separate. This would be ideal, I think. For some reason, I like > to keep os separate from application data. BTW, there's a raid10 module in current 2.6 kernels, which works somewhat differently compared with raid0(2x raid1) etc. /mjt