Am 27.06.22 um 20:52 schrieb Wols Lists:
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
in other words: in every typical usecase
how does RAID1 work with different disk sizes?
the point is that "With raid-10, it's much more complicated" is simply
wrong unledss you say "it can be more complicated if you have a strange
setup"
