not actually. There's overhead with doing that. plus WHEN there's a
disk failure your raid0 is toast and your raid 1 is degraded. Why not
jsut run 4 disks since they are so cheap nowadays and not have to deal
witht he complications?
Miguel Medalha wrote:
If you only have 2 drives there's not much you can do to avoid
concurrent access. The killer is head seek time - if you have your
only 2 drives tied together in any kind of raid and the head needs to
be in 2 places at once it doesn't matter much how you laid out the
partitions. Reads can be sort-of independent on raid1 but writes make
both seek to the same place.
That's not what I was referring to. I meant, for example, that if you
have on the same disks a RAID-0 containing data that is very frequently
used and a RAID-1 containing data that is rarelly accessed, then you
still beneffit from the qualities of both RAID types despite them being
on the same physical disks.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Scanned with Copfilter Version 0.84beta2 (P3Scan 2.2.1)
AntiSpam: SpamAssassin 3.1.8
AntiVirus: ClamAV 0.90.2/3283 - Tue May 22 18:56:44 2007
by Markus Madlener @ http://www.copfilter.org
--
My "Foundation" verse:
Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and
every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt
condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their
righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape"
CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician)
Linux user #322099
Machines:
206822
256638
276825
http://counter.li.org/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
