For regulars here on the list we understand "raid10" to mean (what outsiders call non-standard) "md raid10". To be very clear for everyone coming here, how about we agree to use that - "md raid10" and "raid1+0" to mean the (to outsiders "standard") version, and to just not use plain "raid10" at all as it is ambiguous. My understanding of "standard" = accepted in all the subdomain discussion areas of the overall concept (md raid being a subset of raid). Within the overall topic domain, mdadm-implemented raid is just one flavor, one which in fact many consider substandard and inconsequential - although I and of course most here disagree, that's the way it is. A major advantage is the fact that mdraid is not proprietary but open, and although the meaning of standard may often imply open as opposed to to proprietary, that's not so in this case. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Jon Nelson <jnelson-linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Before this goes any further, why not just reference the excellent > Wikipedia article (actually, excellent applies to both Wikipedia *and* > the article): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10 > > The only problem I have with the wikipedia article is the assertion > that Linux MD RAID 10 is non-standard. It's as standard as anything > else is in this world. -- 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
