On 01/11/2011 14:37, John Robinson wrote:
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.
No, md RAID10 does /not/ offer more redundancy than RAID1. You are
right that md RAID10 offers more than RAID1 (or traditional RAID0 over
RAID1 sets) - but it is a convenience and performance benefit, not a
redundancy benefit. In particular, it lets you build RAID10 from any
number of disks, not just two. And it lets you stripe over all disks,
improving performance for some loads (though not /all/ loads - if you
have lots of concurrent small reads, you may be faster using plain RAID1).
To get higher redundancy with RAID10 or RAID1, you need to use more
"ways" in the mirror. For example, creating RAID10 with "--layout n3"
will give you three copies of all data, rather than just two, and
therefore better redundancy - at the cost of disk space. When you write
"RAID10", the assumption is you mean a normal two-way mirror unless you
specifically say otherwise, and such a mirror has only a worst-case
redundancy of 1 disk. A second failure will kill the array if it
happens to hit the second copy of the data.
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.
Correct. If you have a multiple of 4 disks, a "normal" near two-way
RAID10 is almost indistinguishable from a standard two-way RAID1.
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
