uhmmmmm write-behind is nice, raid0 have chunk size, don´t? 2011/1/31 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:51:32 -0200 Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> now, a question.... >> >> if raid1 is like raid10 (one disk = raid0) >> why not only one raid1 (raid10) software implementation? >> for example, if i have 4 disks and i want 4 mirrors. >> why not work with only raid10? why the option since we have all >> features of raid1 inside raid10? >> is it to allow small source code (a small ARM rom)? memory usage? cpu >> usage? easy to implement? > > It is mostly "historical reasons". > RAID1 already existed. When I wrote RAID10 I wanted to keep it separate so > as not to break RAID1. I have never had a good reason to merge the two > implementations. > > And RAID1 does have some functionality that RAID10 doesn't, like write-behind. > Also RAID1 doesn't have a chunk size. RAID10 does. > > NeilBrown > -- > 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 -- 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
