On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:53:07 -0200 Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > uhmmmmm write-behind is nice, > raid0 have chunk size, don´t? Yes, but we weren't discussing RAID0 (???) NeilBrown > > 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 > > > > > -- 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
