Max Waterman wrote: []
My preference will probably be raid10 - ie raid0 2 drives, raid0 another 2 drives, and then raid1 both raid0s. My 5th disk can be a hot spare. Round reasonable?
Nononono. Never do that. Instead, create two raid1s and raid0 both, ie, just the opposite. Think about the two variants, and I hope you'll come to the reason why raid0(2x raid1) is more reliable than raid1(2x raid0). ;)
Alternatively, we could probably get a 6th disk and do raid1 on disk #5 & #6 and install the OS on that - keeping the application data separate. This would be ideal, I think. For some reason, I like to keep os separate from application data.
BTW, there's a raid10 module in current 2.6 kernels, which works somewhat differently compared with raid0(2x raid1) etc. /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
