On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Derek Vadala wrote: > 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. 900TB with 100G disks striped 3 disk mirrors: 27 disks 900TB with 100G disks RAID5 x RAID5: 16 disks 900TB with 100G disks RAID6: 11 disks RAID5 x RAID5 would survive any three disk losses. Mirroring is always much more expensive. It's cheaper to do things intelligently. - 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
