Mdadm-faq
From Linux Raid Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-mdadm/mdadm/trunk/debian/FAQ?op=file&rev=0&sc=0] on Linux raid. Some comments: | http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-mdadm/mdadm/trunk/debian/FAQ?op=file&rev=0&sc=0] on Linux raid. Some comments: | ||
| − | Answer 4b: The FAQ says that for a 4-disk raid10 array | + | Answer 4b: The FAQ says that for a 4-disk raid10 array, you can survive two disk failures in half of the cases. The real figure is that in 2/3 of the cases you can survive. |
Answer 6: The raid10 layout actually makes sense with only 2 disks, the FAQ says 3 disks are needed. | Answer 6: The raid10 layout actually makes sense with only 2 disks, the FAQ says 3 disks are needed. | ||
The FAQ references http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/ which actually does not refer to current Linux kernel raid10 technology, but to RAID1+0 versus RAID0+1 nested raid layout. | The FAQ references http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/ which actually does not refer to current Linux kernel raid10 technology, but to RAID1+0 versus RAID0+1 nested raid layout. | ||
Revision as of 14:15, 20 December 2008
Debian has a [FAQ http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-mdadm/mdadm/trunk/debian/FAQ?op=file&rev=0&sc=0] on Linux raid. Some comments:
Answer 4b: The FAQ says that for a 4-disk raid10 array, you can survive two disk failures in half of the cases. The real figure is that in 2/3 of the cases you can survive.
Answer 6: The raid10 layout actually makes sense with only 2 disks, the FAQ says 3 disks are needed.
The FAQ references http://aput.net/~jheiss/raid10/ which actually does not refer to current Linux kernel raid10 technology, but to RAID1+0 versus RAID0+1 nested raid layout.
