On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:01:11PM +0700, hansbkk@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@satx.rr.com> wrote: > >> - I am not at this point overly concerned about performance issues - > >> reliability/redundancy and ease of recovery are my main priorities. > > > > In that case, I'm not sure about your desire for the additional > > complexity. Someone else suggested RAID6, which from an operational > > standpoint is much simpler. The main reason, it seems to me, for the more > > complex topologies would be enhancing perfromance. > > I can see how RAID6 is simpler than RAID10, but compared to RAID1? Hmm, does not compute by me. RAID1 and RAID10 are the same in complexity, RAID10 is just a modern RAID1, and should actually have been called RAID1. best regards keld _______________________________________________ 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/
