Michael Tokarev wrote:
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). ;)
Ah, yes. Right. I was aware of the 'difference', just had it backwards
in my mind...oops.
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.
oh? and how does that compare to the MD. Although I can create md devices
using mdadm, I guess I'm not completely sure what actually does the work.
Max.
-
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
