From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: What's the typical RAID10 setup? Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:03:30 -0500 Message-ID: <4D4C2352.9000407@cfl.rr.com> References: <20110131152151.GD7861@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> <4D470F96.40409@cfl.rr.com> <4D471A41.1090706@hardwarefreak.com> <4D4730C0.8080900@cfl.rr.com> <20110201092007.GA7860@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110201092007.GA7860@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids FYI, you should get in the habit of using your mail client's reply to all function. I did not see this until now because you did not send me a copy. On 2/1/2011 4:20 AM, Robin Hill wrote: > No, it's RAID 10 or RAID 1+0. RAID 0+1 would be 2 mirrored pairs of > 5-disk RAID 0 arrays, in which case you could only lose 5 disks if In English we read from left to right and top to bottom, so 0+1 means stripe on top of mirror. > The md man page would be better for information on the physical layouts, > but I don't see anything on there to support what you're saying here. The section on raid10 describes the layouts. For a 4 disk array, the default layout of n2 is equivalent to raid 0+1. A 2, 3, or 5 disk array is not even possible with 0+1, but raid10 is quite happy with that.