From: Tom Bishop bisho...@gmail.com
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
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
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 (striping
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 :
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 Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk 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
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
Jacob Bresciani wrote:
RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
Since it's a strip set of mirrored disks, the smallest
On Sep 25, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
Jacob Bresciani wrote:
RAID10 requires at least 4 drives does it not?
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 characteristics,
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
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
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 drives?
This
On Sep 25, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.pt 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
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
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk 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...
So i setup my initial test like this
mdadm -v
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...
So 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 bisho...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been reading lots of stuff but trying to find out if
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Digimer li...@alteeve.com 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
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Digimer li...@alteeve.com 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
20 matches
Mail list logo
