From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Turmel Subject: Re: raid10 physical layout? Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:13:41 -0400 Message-ID: <519FBBE5.7050802@turmel.org> References: <20130524184930.GA9609@septictank.raw-sewage.fake> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130524184930.GA9609@septictank.raw-sewage.fake> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Garman Cc: linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 05/24/2013 02:49 PM, Matt Garman wrote: > > I'm looking into building a six-disk raid10. The six disks are > comprised of three from one manufacturer, and three from another. > But based on what I've been reading, looks like mdadm's more > sophisticated raid10 layout schemes give better performance. For > example, can I create a raid10,f2 set in such a way as to meet my > "redundant copies on different manufacturer" criteria? Just alternate the manufacturers when you list the devices in the "--create" operation. MD lays out raid10,f2 redundant data on adjacent disks. (Wraps around.) Phil