> It does not matter (except to people writing MD-specific tools).
> There is nothing special as to the ordering of drives or chunks
> on drives. Also reliability is a *statistical* property not a
> geometric one...
Uhm, why it don't matter? For clarity, let me redraw the two schemas:
1) A1 A2 A3 A4
.. .. .. ..
A4 A1 A2 A3
2) A1 A2 A3 A4
.. .. .. ..
A2 A1 A4 A3
Schema n.1 will fail on any adjacent disk failure. Eg: 1 & 2, 2 & 3, 3 &
4, 4 & 1.
On the other hand, schema n.2 will become inactive only when 1 & 2 or 3
& 4 disk fail, but not, for example, when 2 & 3 or 1 & 4 fail.
Or I misunderstand something?
> That "consecutive two-disk failures" is really funny!
Er, my English is not very good :p
I really was talking about adjacent disk failures. Sorry!
> If two-paired-disk failure in RAID10 bother you, try RAID14:
>
> http://www.sabi.co.uk/blog/13-two.html#131213
>
> Warning: that does not come at no cost :-).
Thank you very mych for the link! I need some time to read it carefully...
Regards.
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@xxxxxxxxxx - info@xxxxxxxxxx
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
--
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
