On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:15:39PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Keld Jørn Simonsen put forth on 2/4/2011 2:42 PM: > > >>> 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. > > > > I was puzzled here. I think you mean: > > > > "the _on disk_ layout of RAID 10 is identical to RAID 1 and RAID 0" > > > > If that is what you meant, I think we agree on most things here. > > I set a trap for you, of sorts. ;) And I deliberately fell into your trap, tongue in cheek:-) Maybe we should avoid traps and fooling around in them, as it just confuses others and waistes our time. I do think there are valid points coming out of our discussion here. I have tried to avoid your ad hominem remarks and traps, and just try to be constructive. > If what you say is true, then RAID 10 should > be covered in the DDF, as migration from one device to another isn't possible > without the RAID 10 on disk layout being defined in the DDF as with all the > other RAID levels. True? I am a little puzzled with what you mean here. RAID 1+0 is covered in DDF 2.0 as a description of RAID-1 or RAID-1E , and then striping it according to 4.3.1 . I do think they should add something about calling it RAID 1+0 or maybe RAID-1E+0 or some such. And then explain something about the term "RAID10" and why you should rather call it RAID-1+0 or RAID-1E+0, to indicate it is a Secondary RAID level, and to avoid ambiguity. I have given some remarks on RAID10 on http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/feedback/ Best regards keld -- 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
