SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

June 2013

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Florian Philipp <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Florian Philipp <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:59:42 +0200
Content-Type:
multipart/signed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1145 bytes) , signature.asc (269 bytes)
Am 02.06.2013 14:47, schrieb Paul Robert Marino:
> On Jun 1, 2013 2:09 AM, Steve Bergman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a server that I'm getting ready to put into production. It has 4
> SATA drives which I've configured as a 2-drive raid1 array with 2 hot
> spares. I'd like the performance of raid10, but need a little better
> fault tolerance. Devoting all 4 drives to raid1 seems fault-tolerance
> overkill. It's come to my attention that mdadm supports a sort of
> raid1e-like "raid10" mode with 3 drives, and that I have a choice of a
> near or far configuration. 3 drive raid10 with 1 hot spare sounds
> perfect. 2-drive fault tolerance is perfect. And the improved
> performance sound good.
> [...]
> Steve Bergman> First of all what do you mean by raid 10 do you mean Raid 1+0 or striped
> raid 5s which is some times called raid 10, 5+0 or 50
> 
> Either case the drive numbers don't add up.
> For raid 1+0 with hot spares you need an even number of drives plus your
> spares.
> 

No, he means the RAID-1e implementation provided by the kernel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#RAID_1E

Regards,
Florian Philipp




ATOM RSS1 RSS2