Re: what's wrong with RAID-10? (was "Re: moving a working array")

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

 



On 27/06/2022 19:41, Reindl Harald wrote:


Am 27.06.22 um 17:10 schrieb Wols Lists:
On 27/06/2022 11:41, David T-G wrote:
Wol, et al --

...and then Wols Lists said...
%
% On 24/06/2022 15:09, Wilson Jonathan wrote:
% > On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 08:38 -0500, o1bigtenor wrote:
% > >
% > > I have a working (no issues) raid-10 array in one box.
%
% Bummer. It's a raid-10. A raid-1 would have been easier.
[snip]

This tripped me.  I presumed that the reason for -10, not least because
he also said "these 4 drives", was because the array space is bigger than
just one hard drive size, ie 6T on 4ea 3T drives.  How would RAID-1 work
for that storage?  And why would it be easier than RAID-10?

Just that raid-1 would have been a simple case of two drives, each a backup of the other. Keep one safe, put the other in the new system.

With raid-10, it's much more complicated - you can't just do that :-(

you can easily do that with RAID10

Only if all the disks are the same size ... and an even number ...

Cheers,
Wol



[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