From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: What's the typical RAID10 setup? Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:15:39 -0600 Message-ID: <4D4C6C7B.2020304@hardwarefreak.com> References: <20110131203725.GB2283@www2.open-std.org> <4D475AB5.10600@hardwarefreak.com> <20110203110428.GA26762@www2.open-std.org> <4D4B3DAE.3070502@hardwarefreak.com> <20110204070613.GA3788@www2.open-std.org> <4D4BB87A.30800@hardwarefreak.com> <20110204090602.GA4017@www2.open-std.org> <20110204204251.GB6603@www2.open-std.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110204204251.GB6603@www2.open-std.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Keld_J=F8rn_Simonsen?= Cc: Jon Nelson , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mathias_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bur=E9n?= , Roberto Spadim , Denis , Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids Keld J=F8rn Simonsen put forth on 2/4/2011 2:42 PM: >>> So apparently their Disk Data Format specification doesn't include = hybrid RAID >>> levels. This makes sense, as the _on disk_ layout of RAID 10 is id= entical to >>> RAID 1. >=20 > I was puzzled here. I think you mean: >=20 > "the _on disk_ layout of RAID 10 is identical to RAID 1 and RAID 0" >=20 > If that is what you meant, I think we agree on most things here. I set a trap for you, of sorts. ;) If what you say is true, then RAID = 10 should be covered in the DDF, as migration from one device to another isn't po= ssible without the RAID 10 on disk layout being defined in the DDF as with all= the other RAID levels. True? --=20 Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html