On 21/06/2011 11:45, NeilBrown wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:24:20 +0100 Jonathan Tripathy<jonnyt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Use md's "single process" RAID10 with the standard near layout (which is
apperently the same as RAID1+0 in industry), which 2 drives could fail
without loosing the array?
This is what I have:
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 5 0 active sync /dev/sda5
1 8 21 1 active sync /dev/sdb5
2 8 37 2 active sync /dev/sdc5
3 8 53 3 active sync /dev/sdd5
Thanks
--
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
Run
man 4 md
search for "RAID10"
read what you find, and if it doesn't make sense, ask again.
If it does make sense, post your answer and feel free to ask for
confirmation.
NeilBrown
Sorry, it still doesn't make much sense to me I'm afraid.
In fact, it's confused me more - since I'm using "near", does that means
that the "copy" (I'm using near=2) of a given trunk may lie on the same
disk, leading to *no redundancy*??
Thanks
--
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
