>> You might be interested in this article:
>>
>> "Why is RAID 1+0 better than RAID 0+1?"
>> http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/
>>
>>
>
>
> The whole raid1+0 or raid0+1 argument was really only relevant in the
> days of pata when one disk dying on one channel might take out the other
> disk on the same channel or the controller. Now that we are using SATA,
> it is MOOT.
No, it is not moot. Have you read the article? It has nothing to do with
PATA or SATA drives but with probabilities of failure under normal and
degraded state.
"Mathematically, the difference is that the chance of system failure
with two drive failures in a RAID 0+1 system with two sets of drives is
(n/2)/(n - 1) where n is the total number of drives in the system. The
chance of system failure in a RAID 1+0 system with two drives per mirror
is 1/(n - 1). So, using the 8 drive systems shown in the diagrams, the
chance that losing a second drive would bring down the RAID system is
4/7 with a RAID 0+1 system and 1/7 with a RAID 1+0 system."
"Another difference between the two RAID configurations is performance
when the system is in a degraded state, i.e. after it has lost one or
more drives but has not lost the right combination of drives to
completely fail."
RAID 1+0 is still more secure."
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
