From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: RAID-10 explicitly defined drive pairs? Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:16:33 -0600 Message-ID: <4F074891.5030401@hardwarefreak.com> References: <20111212115459.GC20730@fi.muni.cz> <4EE61EAE.20101@anonymous.org.uk> <20120106150823.GX25976@fi.muni.cz> <20231.9177.523012.471046@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20231.9177.523012.471046@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids I often forget the vger lists don't provide a List-Post: header (while 'everyone' else does). Thus my apologies for this reply going initially only to Peter and not the list. On 1/6/2012 10:39 AM, Peter Grandi wrote: > You might try a two layer arrangements, as a 'raid0' of 'raid1' > pairs, instead of a 'raid10'. The two things with MD are not the > same, for example you can do layouts like a 3-drive 'raid10'. The MD 3-drive 'RAID 10' layout being similar or equivalent to SNIA RAID 1E, IIRC. -- Stan