On 03/12/2022 05:58, David T-G wrote:
% This is my mantra as well here. For my home system, I prefer % symplicity and robustness and performance, so I tend just use RAID1 I've finally convinced The Boss to spring for additional disks so that I can mirror, so our two servers both have SSD mirroring; yay. The web server doesn't need much space, so it has a pair of 4T HDDs mirrored as well ... but as RAID10 since I thought that that was cool. Ah, well.
Raid 10 across two drives? Do I read you right? So you can easily add a 3rd drive to get 6TB of usable storage, but raid 10 x 2 drives = raid 1 ...
Changing topic slightly, if you have multiple slices per drive, raided (which I've done, I wanted /, /home and /var on their own devices), it is quite easy to lose just one slice. But that *should* be down to mis-configured devices. Get a soft-read error, the *linux* timeout kicks in, and the partition gets kicked out.
But that sort of problem should take no time whatsoever to recover from. With journalling or bitmap (you'll need to read up on the details) a re-add should just replay the lost writes, and you're back in business. So - if your aim is speed of recovery - there's no point splitting the disk into slices. There are good reasons for doing it, but that isn't one of them!
Cheers, Wol
