on 5-22-2008 9:12 AM Rudi Ahlers spake the following:
What you are describing would be raid 0+1 not raid 10. Most docs I have read state that raid 10 is more fault tolerant. Here is one that explains it better;Warren Young wrote:John R Pierce wrote:raid50 requires 2 or more raid 5 volumes. with 4 disks, thats just not an option. for file storage (including backup files from a database), raid5 is probably fine... for primary database tablespace storage, I'd only use raid1 or raid10.RAID-10 has only one perfect application, and that's with exactly four disks. It can't use fewer, and the next larger step is 8, where other flavors of RAID usually make more sense. But, for the 4-disk configuration, it's unbeatable unless you need capacity more than speed and redundancy. (In that case, you go with RAID-5.)RAID-10 gives the same redundancy as RAID-50: guaranteed tolerance of a single disk lost, and will tolerate a second disk lost at the same time if it's in the other half of the RAID. RAID-10 may also give better performance than RAID-50. I'm not sure because you're trading off more spindles against more parity calculation with the RAID-50. At any rate, RAID-10 shouldn't be *slower*._______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centosIt seems like you know / like RAID-10 a lot :)So, how does it perform with 6 discs for example? Say I have 3 HDD's in RAID-0, and another 3 in RAID-0, then RAID-1 the 2 RAID-0 stripes. How well would that work?And what would you recommend on 8 / 10 HDD's?
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/multXY-c.html -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
