On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 02:17:37PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Keld Jørn Simonsen put forth on 1/31/2011 1:28 PM: > > Top-posting... > > > > How is the raid0+1 problem of only 33 % survival for 2 disk with RAID10? > > > > I know for RAID10,F2 the implementation in Linux MD is bad. > > It is only 33 % survival, while it with a probably minor fix could be 66%. > > > > But how with RAID10,n2 and RAID10,o2? > > I don't care what Neil or anyone says, these "layouts" are _NOT_ RAID 10. If > you want to discuss RAID 10, please leave these non-standard Frankenstein > "layouts" out of the discussion. Including them only muddies things unnecessarily. Please keep terminology clean, and non-ambigeous. Please refer to the old term RAID10 as RAID1+0, which is also the original and more precise term for that concept of multilevel RAID. RAID10 on this list refers to the RAID10 modules of the Linux kernel. I can concurr that this may be a somewhat misleading term, as it is easily confused with the popular understanding of RAID10, meaning RAID1+0. And I see Linux RAID10 as a family of RAID1 layouts. Indeed RAID10,n2 is almost the same as normal RAID1, and RAID10,o2 is an implementation of a specific layout of the RAID1 standard. RAID10,f2 could easily also be seen as a specific RAID1 layout. But that is the naming of terms that we have to deal with on this Linux kernel list for the RAID modules. best regards Keld -- 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
