From: Tom Bishop
>Thanks everyone for the input...I have decided to go with the f2 option,
>however
>
>the rebuild time seems to be taking quite a long time, almost 24hr...I have
>read
>
>that there are options for speeding this up but want to make sure that they
>are
>ok to dohas to do
Thanks everyone for the input...I have decided to go with the f2 option,
however the rebuild time seems to be taking quite a long time, almost
24hr...I have read that there are options for speeding this up but want to
make sure that they are ok to dohas to do with setting the minimum speed
limi
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
>>> wrote:
Jacob Bresciani wrote:
> RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
> The raid1e type probably didn't exist when Neil Brown came up with the
> algorithm.
You are probably right.
> He should have patented it though...
Maybe...
> Maybe he started out with the idea to create a raid10, but didn't want the
> complexity of managing sub-arrays so decided just to re
On Sep 25, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> Mdraid10 actually allows for a 3 drive raid10 set. It isn't raid10 per say
>> but a raid level based on distributing copies of chunks around the spindles
>> for redundancy.
>
> Isn't this what they call RAID 1e (RAID 1 Enhanced), which n
Miguel Medalha wrote:
>> Mdraid10 actually allows for a 3 drive raid10 set. It isn't raid10 per say
>> but a raid level based on distributing copies of chunks around the spindles
>> for redundancy.
>>
>
> Isn't this what they call RAID 1e (RAID 1 Enhanced), which needs a
> minimum of 3 driv
> Mdraid10 actually allows for a 3 drive raid10 set. It isn't raid10 per say
> but a raid level based on distributing copies of chunks around the spindles
> for redundancy.
Isn't this what they call RAID 1e (RAID 1 Enhanced), which needs a
minimum of 3 drives?
This seems to me a much better n
Thanks for all of the inputs...I finally came across a good article
summarizing what I needed, looks like I am going to try to the f2 option and
then do some testing vs the default n2 option. I am building the array as
we speak but it looks like building the f2 option will take 24hrs vs 2hrs
for t
> And don't do it that way.
>
> If you have a single drive failure with RAID 0+1 you've lost *all* of
> your redundancy - one more failure and you are dead. If you create two
> RAID1 sets and then strip them into a RAID0 you get pretty much the same
> performance and space efficiency characteristi
On Sep 25, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
>> wrote:
>>> Jacob Bresciani wrote:
RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
Since it's a strip set of mirrored disks, the sm
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
> wrote:
>> Jacob Bresciani wrote:
>>> RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
>>>
>>> Since it's a strip set of mirrored disks, the smallest configuration I
>>> can see is 4 disks, 2 mirr
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
wrote:
> Jacob Bresciani wrote:
>> RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
>>
>> Since it's a strip set of mirrored disks, the smallest configuration I
>> can see is 4 disks, 2 mirrored pairs stripped.
>
> He might be referring to what he c
Jacob Bresciani wrote:
> RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
>
> Since it's a strip set of mirrored disks, the smallest configuration I
> can see is 4 disks, 2 mirrored pairs stripped.
He might be referring to what he can get from the mdraid10 (i know, Neil
Brown could have chosen a
On 09/25/2010 01:06 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> If you have a single drive failure with RAID 0+1 you've lost *all* of
> your redundancy - one more failure and you are dead. If you create two
>
Things get a bit 'grey' with the mdraid10 and extentions, look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sta
On 09/24/2010 07:50 PM, Digimer wrote:
> Raid 10 requires 4 drives. First you would make two RAID 0 arrays, then
> create a third array that is RAID 1 using the two RAID 0 arrays for it's
> devices.
>
> With only two drives, your option is RAID 1 (mirroring - proper
> redundancy) or RAID 0 (stripin
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 10-09-24 10:27 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
>> I have been reading lots of stuff but trying to find out if a raid10
>> 2drive setup is any better/worse than a normal raid 1 setupI have to
>> 1Tb drives for my data and a seperate system drive, I am
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 10-09-24 10:27 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
> > I have been reading lots of stuff but trying to find out if a raid10
> > 2drive setup is any better/worse than a normal raid 1 setupI have to
> > 1Tb drives for my data and a seperate system drive, I
RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
Since it's a strip set of mirrored disks, the smallest configuration I can
see is 4 disks, 2 mirrored pairs stripped.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
> I have been reading lots of stuff but trying to find out if a raid10 2drive
>
On 10-09-24 10:27 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
> I have been reading lots of stuff but trying to find out if a raid10
> 2drive setup is any better/worse than a normal raid 1 setupI have to
> 1Tb drives for my data and a seperate system drive, I am only interested
> in doing raid on my data...
>
>
>
I have been reading lots of stuff but trying to find out if a raid10 2drive
setup is any better/worse than a normal raid 1 setupI have to 1Tb drives
for my data and a seperate system drive, I am only interested in doing raid
on my data...
So i setup my initial test like this
mdadm -v --c
20 matches
Mail list logo
