From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Rabbitson Subject: Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:41:53 +0100 Message-ID: <479F4941.1050304@rabbit.us> References: <479EAF42.6010604@pobox.com> <18334.46306.611615.493031@notabene.brown> <479F07E1.7060408@pobox.com> <479F0AAB.3090702@rabbit.us> <479F331F.7080902@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <479F3C74.1050605@rabbit.us> <479F42A5.8040007@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <479F42A5.8040007@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Moshe Yudkowsky , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Michael Tokarev wrote: > Linux raid10 MODULE (which implements that standard raid10 > LEVEL in full) adds some quite.. unusual extensions to that > standard raid10 LEVEL. The resulting layout is also called > raid10 in linux (ie, not giving new names), but it's not that > raid10 (which is again the same as raid1+0) as commonly known > in various literature and on the internet. Yet raid10 module > fully implements STANDARD raid10 LEVEL. I will let Neil speak about what he meant by RAID10: whether it is raid10 + weird extensions, or a generalization of drive/stripe layouts. However if you want to be so anal about names and specifications: md raid 10 is not a _full_ 1+0 implementation. Consider the textbook scenario with 4 drives: (A mirroring B) striped with (C mirroring D) When only drives A and C are present, md raid 10 with near offset will not start, whereas "standard" RAID 1+0 is expected to keep clunking away. Peter