On Monday June 9, Alan.Brunelle@xxxxxx wrote:
> Is there some reason why the MD RAID10 module does /not/ support a
> "RAID0-like" configuration (-p n1)? The comments in drivers/md/raid10.c
> seem to suggest it should: "* If [near_copies and far_copies] are 1, we
> get raid0." Yet the code specifically checks for ((near_copies *
> far_copies) > 1).
You mean:
if ((nc*fc) <2 || (nc*fc) > mddev->raid_disks ||
(mddev->layout >> 17)) {
printk(KERN_ERR "raid10: %s: unsupported raid10 layout: 0x%8x\n",
mdname(mddev), mddev->layout);
goto out;
}
Yes, I guess that could be "nc*fc < 1". Everything else should still
work.
I cannot think of a good reason for making a raid10 with no redundancy though.
>
> Just curious, as it seems interesting that one could support RAID0,
> RAID1 /and/ RAID10 all w/ one RAID module.
Interesting: yes.
Useful: not sure.
NeilBrown
--
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
