I am trying to compare the three RADI10 layouts with each other. Assuming a simple 4 drive setup with 2 copies of each block, I understand that a "near" layout makes RAID10 resemble RAID1+0 (although it's not 1+0). I also understand that the "far" layout trades some read performance for some write performance, so it's best for read-intensive operations, like read-only file servers. I don't really understand the "offset" layout. Am I right in asserting that like "near" it keeps stripes together and thus requires less seeking, but stores the blocks at different offsets wrt the disks? If A,B,C are data blocks, a,b their parts, and 1,2 denote their copies, the following would be a classic RAID1+0 where 1,2 and 3,4 are RAID0 pairs combined into a RAID1: hdd1 Aa1 Ba1 Ca1 hdd2 Ab1 Bb1 Cb1 hdd3 Aa2 Ba2 Ca2 hdd4 Ab2 Bb2 Cb2 How would this look with the three different layouts? I think "near" is pretty much the same as above, but I can't figure out "far" and "offset" from the md(4) manpage. Also, what are their respective advantages and disadvantages? Thanks, -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck spamtraps: madduck.bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx "a woman begins by resisting a man's advances and ends by blocking his retreat." -- oscar wilde
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
