1 |
On Friday 06 October 2006 18:20, Richard Broersma Jr wrote: |
2 |
> I see from reading the mdadm man page that a RAID10 array can be created |
3 |
> directly from individual drives. I assume this gives better performance |
4 |
> than creating two raid1 arrays and then using raid0 to attach the two raid1 |
5 |
> meta devices. Is this the case? |
6 |
|
7 |
Yup. I use it on 4 200GB drives (which 1 died a couple weeks ago, but I |
8 |
haven't got round to replacing) at home. |
9 |
Can't say whether you'd get any better performance, but it's a whole lot |
10 |
easier to create and manage! |
11 |
|
12 |
> Also, I notice when building new kernels that there are no kernel modules |
13 |
> for RAID10. I haven't yet tested this myself (although I have (4) 300GB on |
14 |
> hand to start testing in the next few weeks), but would this create a |
15 |
> problem when trying to create/mount a RAID10 meta device? |
16 |
|
17 |
You'll need the kernel driver regardless. |
18 |
What kernel? I was using RAID10 way back on 2.6.11.10 as a standard part of |
19 |
the kernel, I even found a bug which was fixed by a nice man from Suse within |
20 |
2 days (kernel.org bug#5181, hdf is the one which has properly failed now, I |
21 |
never did replace any after that bug). |
22 |
|
23 |
> I had a terrible experience with my array when it was configured as raid5. |
24 |
> It worked well for samba shares with lots of reads and few writes, but when |
25 |
> I tried to use it in a heavy write environment, the performance was |
26 |
> terrible and the array would break and individual drive would become out of |
27 |
> sync. mdadm would of course automatically re-sync the drives once the |
28 |
> writes completed. |
29 |
|
30 |
Heh, I use RAID5 on the fileservers at work, and the backup box at our colo. |
31 |
The DBA is forever moaning at me that it's too slow for the DB backups, the |
32 |
fileservers are fine. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Mike Williams |
36 |
-- |
37 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |