On Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 04:59:28PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 1/31/2011 3:23 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > This is absolutely not correct. In a 10 disk RAID 10 array, exactly 5 disks can
> > fail, as long as no two are in the same mirror pair, and the array will continue
> > to function, with little or no performance degradation.
>
> That is a raid 0+1, not raid10.
>
No, it's RAID 10 or RAID 1+0. RAID 0+1 would be 2 mirrored pairs of
5-disk RAID 0 arrays, in which case you could only lose 5 disks if
they're all from the same RAID 0 array. With RAID 10 or RAID 1+0 (in
the case of a 10-disk n2 setup, the physical layout should be exactly
the same) then the restriction is, as stated, that no two are "mirrored"
(whether that's a separate RAID 1 mirror or just that the two are
defined by the RAID 10 layout to contain the same data is irrelevant).
> > Where are you getting your information? Pretty much everything you stated is
> > wrong...
>
> The mdadm man page.
>
The md man page would be better for information on the physical layouts,
but I don't see anything on there to support what you're saying here.
Cheers,
Robin
--
___
( ' } | Robin Hill <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
/ / ) | Little Jim says .... |
// !! | "He fallen in de water !!" |
Attachment:
pgptczblSdI57.pgp
Description: PGP signature
