On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 04:13:26PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > David Brown wrote: > > > >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). In fact raid10 mas a bit less redundancy than raid1+0. It is as far as I know built as raid0+1 with a disk layout where you can only loose eg 1 out of 4 disks, while raid1+0 in some cases can lose 2 disks out of 4. Also for lots of concurrent small reads raid10 can in some cases be somewhat faster than raid1, and AFAIK never slower than raid1. Best regards keld -- 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
