Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:49:51 -0700 | From | jw schultz <> | Subject | Re: 2.7 thoughts |
| |
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 08:29:18PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2003-10-10T08:30:03, > Kevin Corry <kevcorry@us.ibm.com> said: > > > On Friday 10 October 2003 01:19, Stuart Longland wrote: > > > - Software RAID 0+1 perhaps? > > Because RAID 0+1 is a rather bad idea. You want RAID 1+0. Make up the > fault matrix and simulate what happens if drives fail. > > We can do both though, as Kevin pointed out. So if you want to shot > yourself in the foot, in the best Unix tradition, we allow you to ;)
I concur with one caviat. 0+1 has the advantage of extendability that doesn't exist with 1+0.
1. break mirror downing side A 2. break stripe A 3. build new stripe A with added disk(s) 4. copying stripe B to stripe A 5. break stripe B 6. build new stripe B with added disk(s) 7. build mirror (A->B)
It may even be possible to do this live. So if gradual extendability is more important than surviving multiple failures 0+1 has the advantage. Normally i prefer the reliability or to do striping at the logical volume level.
-- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws
Remember Cernan and Schmitt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |