Hi, On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Either 0.90 or 1.0 will work (both are held at the end)- 0.90 allows for > kernel auto-assembly, but is a legacy format. Any modern Linux > distribution will use an initrd which can assemble arrays with any > superblock, so current advice would be to use 1.0. Ok, that's clear. > For a boot partition I'd stick with RAID-1, then use RAID-10,f2 for > other partitions. f2 is clear for read-mostly space, like most of /root. But for /var? /home? other /data? I'm learning there a 'subtleties' to all this. > There's no real advantage in using RAID-10,n4 over > RAID-1 (it's a different code-path so there may be slight differences > one way or the other, but nothing that will matter for a boot > partition anyway), and just makes the setup more unusual. I thought that RAID-10's disk failure survivability is n-2, for n >=4 drives. RAID-1 over 4 drives can also survive 2-drive failure? > It's up to you though - RAID-10,n4 and a four-way RAID-1 will have the > same on-disk layout, so either will work fine. Oh - one other thing is > that RAID-1 is expandable (you can add other partitions later) whereas > RAID-10 is not currently. Athough needing to expand /boot is hardly a requirement, I did NOT realize that RAID-10 is not expandable. Partitions ARE certainly add-able within the LVM that spans the RAID-10, but I thoguth that spindles, and new partition could be added after initial creation. Need to read some more. Ben -- 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
