On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- On Mon, 4/26/10, Michael Evans <mjevans1983@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > --- On Mon, 4/26/10, Michael Evans <mjevans1983@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > However, it doesn't say what happens with a larger >> > number of drives. I'm looking for the kind of control I >> > can get with RAID 1+0, where I can specify which drives are >> > mirrors of each other. Is that possible with RAID10? >> >> No, not predictably; the only provided guarantee is that >> the data will >> /not/ be duplicated on the same block-device (usually >> drive). In >> practice you will quickly be able to determine where a >> particular >> version with a given range of input causes data to be >> stored, but >> there is no requirement that future versions produce the >> precise same >> alignment and offsets. > > Ah. So if I want this level of control, I have to sacrifice the advantages of RAID 10 and go with RAID 1+0. > > Good to know. Thanks. > > Andrew > > > > > > -- > 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 > Or write your own program to generate mdadm headers on uninitialized devices. Or if it's just a one time thing, write the headers, stop the array, make sure it says what you want, and then force a resync before writing any data. -- 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
