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 13:28:39 -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: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids do you have a faster array using raid0+1 or raid1+0? 2011/1/31 Roberto Spadim : > 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 afte= r > raid 1, since the number of point of fail is proportional to number o= f > 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 = setup, >> a single drive failure from each RAID0 array will lose you the entir= e >> array. =A0With the reverse (RAID0 over RAID1) then you require both = drives >> 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) bu= t >> with a 6 drive array it changes to 60% for RAID1 over RAID0 versus 2= 0% >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Roberto Spadim > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial > --=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