do you have a faster array using raid0+1 or raid1+0? 2011/1/31 Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > hum that's right, > but not 'increase' (only if you compare raid0+1 betwen raid1+0) using > raid1 and after raid0 have LESS point of fail between raid 0 and after > raid 1, since the number of point of fail is proportional to number of > raid1 devices. > > 2011/1/31 Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 01:00:13PM -0200, Roberto Spadim wrote: >> >>> i think make two very big raid 0 >>> and after raid1 >>> is better >>> >> Not really - you increase the failure risk doing this. With this setup, >> a single drive failure from each RAID0 array will lose you the entire >> array. With the reverse (RAID0 over RAID1) then you require both drives >> in the RAID1 to fail in order to lose the array. Of course, with a 4 >> drive array then the risk is the same (33% with 2 drive failures) but >> with a 6 drive array it changes to 60% for RAID1 over RAID0 versus 20% >> for RAID0 over RAID1. >> >> Cheers, >> Robin >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Roberto Spadim > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial > -- Roberto Spadim Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial -- 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
