On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:30:27PM GMT, Sandeep K Sinha [sandeepksinha@gmail.com] said the following: > > > >> To increase the chances of surviving a double-disk failure it would be > >> better to raid-0 a bunch of raid-1's. > > > > This is RAID1+0 (RAID10/stripe of mirrors) - it's usually preferable to > > 0+1 not only because of the improved redundancy but also the individual > > I disagree. > > Look at this: > http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/multXY-c.html I misread what Bryn had said at first as well, but re-reading it, he means that RAID1+0 does better at recovery than RAID0+1, which does make sense. In RAID0+1, depending on how many mirror arrays you have and how smart your RAID controller is, you could have twice as many disk accesses happening during a disk recovery. The URL that you pointed too doesn't really talk about performance during a recovery anyways. -- Mark S. Krenz IT Director Suso Technology Services, Inc. http://suso.org/ _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/