On 01/11/2011 13:05, Miles Fidelman wrote:
David Brown wrote:
One thing to watch out for when making high-availability systems and
using RAID1 (or RAID10), is that RAID1 only tolerates a single failure
in the worst case. If you have built your disk image spread across
different machines with two-copy RAID1, and a server goes down, then
the rest then becomes vulnerable to a single disk failure (or a single
unrecoverable read error).
It's a different matter if you are building a 4-way mirror from the
four servers, of course.
Just a nit here: I'm looking at "md RAID10" which behaves quite
differently that conventional RAID10. Rather than striping and raiding
as separate operations, it does both as a unitary operation -
essentially spreading n copies of each block across m disks. Rather
clever that way.
Hence my thought about a 16-disk md RAID10 array - which offers lots of
redundancy.
I'm pretty sure that a normal (near) md RAID10 on 16 disks will use the
first two drives you specify as mirrors, and the next two, and so on, so
when you specify the drive order when building the array you'd need to
make sure all the mirrors are on another machine.
Cheers,
John.
--
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
