Re: Triple parity and beyond

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Shouldn't we be talking about RAID 15 here, rather than RAID 51 ?  I
>> interpret "RAID 15" to be like "RAID 10" - a raid5 set of raid1 mirrors,
>> while "RAID 51" would be a raid1 mirror of raid5 sets.  I am certain
>> that you mean a raid5 set of raid1 pairs - I just think you've got the
>> name wrong.
>
> Now that you mention it, yes, RAID 15 would fit much better with
> convention.  Not sure why I thought 51.  So it's RAID 15 from here.
<SNIP>

For us casual readers & RAID users could you clarify RAID15? Would
that be a bunch of RAID1's grouped together in what appears to be a
RAID5 to the system?

Thanks,
Mark
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux