On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 04:06:44PM -0600, Maurice Hilarius wrote: > Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: > >.. > >Hmm, would raid10,n2, or raid10,f2 then have these flaws too? > > > I do not know. > I am, however, about to do some testing to find out. > Our company routinely was using RAID1 on systems, until we discovered this. > With no ability to boot from RAID5 and similar this leaves us in a bit > of a bind. As raid10,n2 is data wise equivalent to RAID1, then grub/lilo should be able to boot from raid10,n2. raid10,n2 should have better performance than RAID10, but raid10,f2 actually should have better performance than both of the others. See http://linux-raid.osdl.org/index.php/Performance (which I wrote). That is why I advocated raid10,f2 for the system partitions, as far as possible, only having /boot as a RAID1. I have a setup which implements this and it runs fine. I look forward to hear about your tests on this. Best regards keld -- 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
