Last edited:
Why not use linux raid10 -> http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.p...-raid-5-vs-raid-10-and-other-raid-levels.htmlThis was a brandnew hp DL180G6 with raid0 (two sata disk only). It was build couple days ago. But today it is not starting up. Last screen shot is like below: I would be happy if you could assist me to which hardwarew I should investigate:
You mentioned you have used RAID1 which more or less are what people automatically selects for safety. I just showed that you can more that double the performance and still have the same safety which RAID1 provides. One other thing is that I have experienced what your screenshot shows and if I remember correct this situation has always been on systems using RAID1. If I remember correct the situation seems to arise if the machine is rebooted a couple of times when the array is doing resync.Great but what is the relation with my issue? Anyway I changed the harddisk and so far it seems ok.
You mentioned you have used RAID1 which more or less are what people automatically selects for safety. I just showed that you can more that double the performance and still have the same safety which RAID1 provides. One other thing is that I have experienced what your screenshot shows and if I remember correct this situation has always been on systems using RAID1. If I remember correct the situation seems to arise if the machine is rebooted a couple of times when the array is doing resync.
Your are wrong. Linux RAID10 requires only 2 disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10You can't do RAID-10 with only two drives, you need at least 4...
![]()
A quote taken from the exact page you linked to...Your are wrong. Linux RAID10 requires only 2 disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10 said:The 2-drive example is equivalent to RAID 1.
Believe what you will but please try reading up on stuff before you speak out. http://www.open-std.org/keld/stripemirror.htmlYou can't mirror and stripe simultaneously to two drives, that doesn't even make sense...
You can't mirror and stripe simultaneously to two drives, that doesn't even make sense...
Yes, and it works surprisingly well here below my PVE:Actually you can and this is explained on wikipedia, for example this little bit of info:
"The first 1/f of each drive is a standard RAID-0 array. This offers striping performance on a mirrored set of only 2 drives."
I have a few servers running RAID 10 on two disks because it performs better than RAID1 for the particular workload they handle.
Raid10
RAID10 provides a combination of RAID1 and RAID0, and is sometimes known as RAID1+0. Every datablock is duplicated some number of times, and the resulting collection of datablocks are distributed over multiple drives.
When configuring a RAID10 array, it is necessary to specify the number of replicas of each data block that are required (this will normally be 2) and whether the replicas should be 'near', 'offset' or 'far'. (Note that the 'offset' layout is only available from 2.6.18).
When 'near' replicas are chosen, the multiple copies of a given chunk are laid out consecutively across the stripes of the array, so the two copies of a datablock will likely be at the same offset on two adjacent devices.
When 'far' replicas are chosen, the multiple copies of a given chunk are laid out quite distant from each other. The first copy of all data blocks will be striped across the early part of all drives in RAID0 fashion, and then the next copy of all blocks will be striped across a later section of all drives, always ensuring that all copies of any given block are on different drives.
The 'far' arrangement can give sequential read performance equal to that of a RAID0 array, but at the cost of reduced write performance.
When 'offset' replicas are chosen, the multiple copies of a given chunk are laid out on consecutive drives and at consecutive offsets. Effectively each stripe is duplicated and the copies are offset by one device. This should give similar read characteristics to 'far' if a suitably large chunk size is used, but without as much seeking for writes.
It should be noted that the number of devices in a RAID10 array need not be a multiple of the number of replica of each data block; however, there must be at least as many devices as replicas.
If, for example, an array is created with 5 devices and 2 replicas, then space equivalent to 2.5 of the devices will be available, and every block will be stored on two different devices.
Finally, it is possible to have an array with both 'near' and 'far' copies. If an array is configured with 2 near copies and 2 far copies, then there will be a total of 4 copies of each block, each on a different drive. This is an artifact of the implementation and is unlikely to be of real value.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.