From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: wish for Linux MD mirrored raid types Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 16:43:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4DC45D6A.5050905@meetinghouse.net> References: <79.BD.29443.A4A54CD4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <79.BD.29443.A4A54CD4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Leslie Rhorer wrote: > The bottom line, however, is that even if RAID1 is at the code level > just a specific implementation of RAID10, it still is a sufficiently > distinct operational mode to warrant its own name, setting it aside from the > more general RAID10 implementation. Aside from that, when I say, "My > servers boot from 2 disk RAID1 arrays", everyone knows exactly what I mean > without my having to go into more detail about the layout. For the most > part, it doesn't really matter if I happened to create the array using a > specific layout of RAID10. This has its greatest importance for someone > inexperienced with RAID systems, who perhaps is setting up his very first > mirrored array with a pair of disks. Having to try to learn all the ins and > outs of RAID10 layouts just to be able to create a pair (or triplet) of > mirrored disks is not appropriate. > Good points all. It is worth noting, that in this context, it's pretty silly to use a fancy setup for /boot and swap space - simple RAID1 mirrored partitions work just fine. Where RAID10 is excellent is as a starting point for LVM, and volumes that support virtual machines. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra