> No, it's not. ÂI see no mention of "RAID 1+0" anywhere in SNIA documents. ÂI > _do_ see "RAID 10" casually mentioned in many places in their documents. ÂBut > I've yet to find where they define or bother to minimally explain the term "RAID > 10". ÂIn technical writing you must define something before you discuss or > reference it. It's not explicitly defined but it's there. Page 84, Section 4.3 Secondary RAID Level "Table 15 lists values used in the Secondary_RAID_Level field of the Virtual Disk Configuration Record (Section 5.9.1) and their definitions. The table defines secondary RAID levels such as Striped, Volume Concatenation, Spanned, and Mirrored for hybrid or multilevel virtual disks. The Secondary_RAID_Level field in the Virtual Disk Configuration Record MUST use the values defined in Table 15." It then goes on to describe how the various secondary RAID levels are composed of "Basic Virtual Disks" (their term for RAID arrays presented as single disks.) As a somewhat related aside I ran into this on an IBM x3650 I was configuring for an office a few months back. IBM explicitly stated support for RAID 10 but the process for setting up the RAID 10 array involved setting up a pair of mirrored disks which the RAID controller then recognized as components it could use to build a RAID 10 array. Reading through the SNIA document and noting IBM & LSI's involvement made me think they may be using the DDF specs in their arrays, which might explain why setting up a RAID 10 array was such an involved affair. -- Drew "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood." --Marie Curie -- 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
