On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Marcel wrote: > > Is there any case where RAID10 wouldn't provide better redundancy? > > Of course. Raid6 would protect against ANY two disk failure, while you > CAN think of a two-disk failure where RAID10 goes belly-up. And it sure > is a good thing to KNOW you have 100% redundancy left when one disk > gives up. Right, but there's nothing to stop you from creating 3-disk mirrors and combining them into a stripe. In that case RAID-10 can withstand a failure of any two disks and in some cases 3-disks. It's more expensive than RAID-6, but with better fault tolerance and, I suspect, comparable write performance. It also strikes me that even in a typical RAID-10, with two disks per mirror, you only risk losing the array if any mirror incurs a second disk failure during reconstruction. With a smart hot spare arrangement, and disks that are well distributed among controllers, the risk is extremely small. But, I suspect that even minimal risk is too great for some of you. --- Derek Vadala, derek@cynicism.com, http://www.cynicism.com/~derek - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
