Re: RAID-10 near vs. RAID-1

[Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.de>]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 05:14:33PM -0700, Paul E Luse wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:04:18 +0200
> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Am 11.06.24 um 20:31 schrieb Piergiorgio Sartor:
> > > I'm setting up a system with 2 SSD M.2 (NVME).
> > > 
> > > I was wondering if would it be better, performace
> > > wise, to have a RAID-10 near layout or a RAID-1.
> > > 
> > > Looking around I found only one benchmark:
> > > 
> > > https://strugglers.net/~andy/blog/2019/06/02/exploring-different-linux-raid-10-layouts-with-unbalanced-devices/
> > > 
> > > Which uses mixed SSD, NVME and SATA.
> > > 
> > > Does anybody have any suggestions, links, or
> > > ideas on the topic?
> > > 
> > > BTW, practically speaking, what's the difference,
> > > between the two RAIDs?
> > 
> > i wouldn't even consider a RAID10 with two disks, especially with SSD 
> > and practically you end with a unsupported RAID1 because there are no 
> > stripes with 2 disks
> > 
> > 
> I don't disagree but I would recommend you try each variation and
> measure the performance for yourself.  It's a great learning experience
> if you haven't done it before and there's nothing like trusting your
> own data over on your own system/config something that someone else has
> done when there are so many factors that can affect performance.
> 
> -Paul
> 

Hi, thanks to you as well.

About benchmarking, you're absolutely right, I did
in the past for other RAIDs (-5, -6 and -10).

I was just hoping to skip it, this time... :-)

I do not have really a performance problem to solve.
I'm just curious, given that the two RAIDs seem
identical, if someone already tested the two.

Thanks,

bye,

-- 

piergiorgio