From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brown Subject: Re: raid 10f2 vs 1 on 2 drives Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 00:36:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4FBC14DC.8070007@hesbynett.no> References: <20120522193340.GM27769@electro-mechanical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120522193340.GM27769@electro-mechanical.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: William Thompson Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 22/05/12 21:33, William Thompson wrote: > I understand that raid 10 f2 is slower on writes due to the location of the > 2nd copy. My question is, if lots of writes are performed, could this > layout wearout the drives quicker than raid 1? No, wear is not going to be significantly different. You didn't say whether you are talking about hard disks (where location makes a difference, but "wear" on the drive motor is insignificant to the disk's expected lifetime), or flash disks (where people often worry about "wear", though location is irrelevant and wear is also irrelevant for most uses of all but the most cheapo disks).