From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nix Subject: Re: New setup: partitions or raw devices Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 22:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: <878temxf5j.fsf@esperi.org.uk> References: <7f6abcbc-7dfa-0252-e9df-984e7e637936@thelounge.net> <3654cb70-9d7c-dfc0-f57d-c57004f11f92@thelounge.net> <253c22a2-8f77-2737-b3b4-6beef107c28c@youngman.org.uk> <14078b47-29dd-6c07-f680-77ac9445be32@thelounge.net> <87tvxazahs.fsf@esperi.org.uk> <5A218EDB.6030909@youngman.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5A218EDB.6030909@youngman.org.uk> (Wols Lists's message of "Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:18:19 +0000") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wols Lists Cc: Reindl Harald , Gandalf Corvotempesta , Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 1 Dec 2017, Wols Lists stated: > Yes it does have advantages, and yes I plan to put a raid-10 array on my > new system, but if reducing wear or protecting data are your priorities, > raid-10 is the wrong choice. It depends on the access patterns. It's no worse at safeguarding data than RAID-5 and can be better (some, but not all, combinations of multiple disk failures will lead to no data loss, something which would otherwise require RAID-6). It's faster at reads and much faster at random writes. The cost: possibly quite a lot more spinning rust for the amount of available storage. (For me, power-consumption considerations led me to stick with RAID, though I've gone to RAID-6.) -- NULL && (void)