I am not sure it has been said, but for a 4 disk raid10,f2 array you should place the first and the second disk on one controller, and then the 3rd and 4th on the second controller. Then you would have a copy of all blocks even if one controller fails. I believe the order is defined by the order the disks are specified in on the mdadm --create line. best regards keld On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 08:26:55PM -0700, Simon Matthews wrote: > 2010/4/12 Tomáš Dulík <dulik@xxxxxxxx>: > > Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner napsal(a): > >> > >> I cannot quite understand your problem. As every part of the array > >> contains it's own metadata, it doesn't matter to md which /dev/sdX a > >> drive is. It might matter a bit for boot-time assembly, but actually > >> that's what UUIDs are for. > >> > > > > I know how UUIDs work. > > My problem with device names is not a "critical", it's about "user > > friendliness" of the physical disk management. > > If a disk fails and I receive email "A Fail event had been detected on md > > device /dev/md2. It could be related to component device /dev/sdd3", how > > will I know which disk should be replaced, if the device name is not > > fixed/persistent? I > > Record the serial number of the disks and which bay they are in. > -- > 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 -- 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
