On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:21:39 -0400 Iordan Iordanov <iordan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello again, > > On 04/19/11 08:12, b2 wrote: > > sorry for my lame question , just don't know how (if possible) to do it. > > After the 3rd system I had to do this on in the last 3 days, I decided > to write a guide myself :). I hope it helps! > > http://iiordanov.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-to-convert-your-single-drive-linux.html > Create the array. I decided to make a RAID10 array instead of a RAID1 array, > which gives me faster sequential reads, but amounts to the same thing in terms > of data replication. RAID10 with two drives and "n2" This is not correct. RAID10-n2 on 2 drives is exactly the same layout and very nearly the same speed as RAID1 on 2 drives. (I say 'very nearly' only because the read-balancing code is a little different and might have slightly different results). Or have you measured these two and found an actually difference? That would certainly be interesting. RAID10-f2 will give faster sequential reads at the cost of slower writes. NeilBrown > > Cheers, > Iordan > -- > 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 -- 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
