From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: possibly silly question (raid failover) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:58:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB07993.7000906@meetinghouse.net> References: <4EAF3F78.5060900@meetinghouse.net> <4EAFEE95.6070608@meetinghouse.net> <4EAFF636.6060904@anonymous.org.uk> <4EB052E6.4050400@meetinghouse.net> <20111101212023.GA20565@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> <4EB06561.8090706@meetinghouse.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids David Brown wrote: > > You are aware, of course, that if you take your 16 drives and use > "-n8", you will get a total disk space equivalent to two drives. It > would be very resistant to drive failures, but /very/ poor space > efficiency. It would also be very fast for reads, but very slow for > writes (as everything must be written 8 times). > > It's your choice - md is very flexible. But I think an eight-way > mirror would be considered somewhat unusual. What would be particularly interesting is if I can do -n4 and configure things in a way that insures that each of those 4 is on a different one of my 4 boxes (4 boxes, 4 disks each). -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra