Derek Vadala wrote: > > RAID-1 --------> RAID-5 (D0,D1,D2,D3,P0) > |--> RAID-5 (D0,D1,D2,D3,P0) > (four disks used for data, only one from each RAID-5 can fail) Wrong, any three disks can fail. If the one RAID has only one faulty disk, the other RAID can have any number of faulty disks without loosing data. > > With RAID-10: > > RAID-0 --------> RAID-1 (D0,D0) > |--> RAID-1 (D1,D1) > |--> RAID-1 (D2,D2) > |--> RAID-1 (D3,D3) > |--> RAID-1 (D4,D4) > (five disks used for data, one from each mirror can fail) > > With RAID-50: > > RAID-0 --------> RAID-5 (D0,D2,D4,D6,P0) > |--> RAID-5 (D1,D3,D5,D7,P0) > > (two disks wasted only one from each RAID-5 can fail) > > I believe that I/O performance would be similar for each > configuration. I'll try to run some tests in the next few days. I'd guess that depends on the access patterns. -- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet. For sending spam use mailto:razor-report@daimi.au.dk - 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
