From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roberto Spadim Subject: Re: What's the typical RAID10 setup? Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:27:32 -0200 Message-ID: References: <20110131152151.GD7861@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110131152151.GD7861@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids hum that's right, but not 'increase' (only if you compare raid0+1 betwen raid1+0) using raid1 and after raid0 have LESS point of fail between raid 0 and after raid 1, since the number of point of fail is proportional to number of raid1 devices. 2011/1/31 Robin Hill : > On Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 01:00:13PM -0200, Roberto Spadim wrote: > >> i think make two very big raid 0 >> and after raid1 >> is better >> > Not really - you increase the failure risk doing this. =A0With this s= etup, > a single drive failure from each RAID0 array will lose you the entire > array. =A0With the reverse (RAID0 over RAID1) then you require both d= rives > in the RAID1 to fail in order to lose the array. =A0Of course, with a= 4 > drive array then the risk is the same (33% with 2 drive failures) but > with a 6 drive array it changes to 60% for RAID1 over RAID0 versus 20= % > for RAID0 over RAID1. > > Cheers, > =A0 =A0Robin > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid"= in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at =A0http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > --=20 Roberto Spadim Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html