Re: Raid 10 question/problem [ot]

Bill Davidsen
2007-01-29T15:18:36Z

Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
> []
>> RAID-10 is not the same as RAID 0+1.
>
> It is. Yes, there's separate module for raid10, but what it - basically -
> does is the same as raid0 module over two raid1 modules will do. It's
> just a bit more efficient (less levels, more room for optimisations),
> easy to use (you'll have single array instead of at least 3), and a bit
> more flexible; at the same way it's less widely tested...
>
> But the end result is basically the same for both ways.
>
For values of "same" which exclude consideration of the disk layout,
throughput, overhead, system administration, and use of spares. Those
are different. But both methods do write multiple copies of ones and
zeros to storage media.

Neil brown, 08/23/2005:
- A raid10 can consist of an odd number of drives (if you have a
cabinet with, say, 8 slots, you can have 1 hot spare, and 7 drives
in a raid10. You cannot do that with LVM (or raid0) over raid1).
- raid10 has a layout ('far') which theoretically can provide
sequential read throughput that scales by number of drives, rather
than number of raid1 pairs. I say 'theoretically' because I think
there are still issues with the read-balancing code that make this
hard to get in practice (though increasing the read-ahead seems to
help).

After about 40 configurations tested, I can say that write performance
is better as well, for any given stripe cache size up to 4x stripe size.
I was looking at something else, but the numbers happen to be available.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot