Keld Jørn Simonsen put forth on 2/4/2011 1:06 AM: > Well RAID1+0 is not the best combination available. I would argue that > raid10,f2 is significantly better in a number of areas. I'd guess Linux software RAID would be lucky to have 1% of RAID deployments worldwide--very lucky. The other 99%+ are HBA RAID or SAN/NAS "appliances" most often using custom embedded RTOS with the RAID code written in assembler, especially in the case of the HBAs. For everything not Linux mdraid, RAID 10 (aka 1+0) is king of the hill, and has been for 15 years+ >> Something smells bad here. Does one of the RAID companies own a patent or >> trademark on "RAID 10"? I'll look into this. It just doesn't make any sense >> for RAID 10 to be omitted from the SNIA DDF but to be referenced in the manner >> it is. > > It looks like they do define all major basic RAID disk layouts. (except > raid10,f2 of cause) . RAID1+0 is a derived format, maybe that is out of > scope of the DDF standard. "A secondary virtual disk is a VD configured using hybrid RAID levels like RAID10 or RAID50. Its elements are BVDs." So apparently their Disk Data Format specification doesn't include hybrid RAID levels. This makes sense, as the _on disk_ layout of RAID 10 is identical to RAID 1. We apparently need to be looking for other SNIA documents to find their definition of RAID 10. That is what started us down this tunnel isn't it? We're so deep now there's no light and I can't see the path behind me anymore. ;) -- Stan -- 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
