Re: 4 disks: RAID-6 or RAID-10 ..

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:14:37PM +0000, Gordon Henderson wrote:
> Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand
> (any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times
> now, I'm begining to think it can't (unless you are lucky!) So maybe I'll
> just stick with Raid-6 as I know that!

RAID-10 cannot survive the failure of *any* two disks as if two
disks in one of the mirrors died then the whole mirror would be lost
which loses you a segment of the upper stripe.  *If* a second disk
dies, then with 4 didks total you have 50% chance of it being the
one you're relying on.

If you require to withstand the loss of *any* two disks then you
need RAID-6.

-- 
http://strugglers.net/wiki/Xen_hosting -- A Xen VPS hosting hobby
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux