> Hi: > I am curious about raid10 redundancy when created with disk numbers below: > > 2 disks => 1 disk tolerance > 3 disks = > 1 disk tolerance > 4 disks => possible 2 disks? or still only 1 disk ? > > how about 5/6 disks with raid10? > thanks a lot for confirmation!! Basically, the reason to use raid10 over raid6 is to increase performance. This is particularly important regarding rebuild times. If you have a huge raid-6 array with large drives, it'll take a long time to rebuild it after a disk fails. With raid10, this is far lower, since you don't need to rewrite and compute so much. Personally, I'd choose raid6 over raid10 in most setups unless I need I lot of IOPS, where RAID6 isn't that good. RAID5 is also ok, if you don't have too much drives, but if you get a double disk failure, well, you're fucked. PS: Always make sure to have a good backup. RAID isn't backup, it's just redundancy and won't help you if your house burns down or a filesystem messes up after a PSU problem or similar. Vennlig hilsen roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 98013356 http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ GPG Public key: http://karlsbakk.net/roysigurdkarlsbakk.pubkey.txt -- Hið góða skaltu í stein höggva, hið illa í snjó rita.
