On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Tanstaafl wrote:
and is not the same as raid1+0 (raid1 on top of raid0).
Not according to everything I've ever read about it... for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10
But this is not certain as raid10 works perfectly well with 2 or 3
disks, including the redundancy.
You must be talking about something else... RAID10 requires at least 4
disks, and always an even number, although most RAID controllers support
the designation of at least one hot spare (so it will auto-rebuild using
the hot spare in the event of a failure). Been using this configuration
in my 5 drive QNAP NAS's for along time.
Yep. Not talking about raid1+0
Linux raid10 really ought to be a "standard" - and effectively is.
I use it whenever I can (with only 2 disks I use raid1 so I can alias
the legs as non-raid).
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@gathman.org>
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
_______________________________________________
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/
