| 1 |
Jim Cunning wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 02 May 2009 13:43:27 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> how do you do 10 with only two disks? You need four! |
| 5 |
>> the kernel is able to autoassemble - so you don't need an initrd - me I |
| 6 |
>> hate initrds. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> RAID10 = RAID1+0. It works fine with 2 disks. I was able to create it first |
| 10 |
> with one drive missing and then add the second, which sync'ed without |
| 11 |
> problems. |
| 12 |
Theoretically, for RAID 10, you need 4 disks, two raid 1's then used to |
| 13 |
make a RAID 0 (or the other way round, I forget....) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
BUT, mdadm will use partitions instead of disks.....So you can make a |
| 16 |
RAID 10 where each stripe takes up half the disk, and the stripes are |
| 17 |
mirrored on each disk....Or each disk is mirrored on itself, and the two |
| 18 |
disks stripped....Or something.... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Won't give you the performance advantages of RAID 10 though, but will |
| 21 |
still waste half your space..... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I would prefer a mirror over the complexity of RAID10 with two disks..... |
Archives