![]() |
Is this really raid10?
I have a server at hetzner that I activated raid10 on by setting SWRAID to 1, and SWRAIDLEVEL to 10. But I'm confused when I look at /proc/mdstat as it indicates both RAID1 and RAID10. If you would please have a look and help me understand, it would be greatly appreciated.
Code:
# cat /proc/mdstat Code:
# cat /etc/fstab Code:
# mdadm --detail /dev/md3 Code:
# mdadm --detail /dev/md1 Thanks. And hi, my first post. 8) EDIT: Could this the right interpretation? Code:
SDA SDB SDC SDD I think to create a "real" pure RAID1+0 volume, it would go something like this: # mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/{sda,sdb} # mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/{sdc,sdd} # mdadm --create /dev/md2 --run --level=0 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md{0,1} One could add as many RAID1 arrays into it as wanted, depending on number of drives available. Or mix it up with bigger groups of e.g. 3 if you had 6 or 9 drives etc to save space. Am I getting this somewhat right? Very new with mdadm, but usually a quick study. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
RAID10 is preferable because it's more fault-tolerant. Take 4 drives split into two pairs, then randomly remove 2 of the drives. RAID10 can only survive 2 drive failures if they're from opposite pairs, RAID01 can only survive if they're from the same pair. There's a 67% chance that the two drives you remove will be from opposite pairs, a 33% chance they're from the same pair. That means you want a stripe of mirrors (RAID10), rather than a mirror of stripes (RAID01), as RAID10 will be twice as likely to survive a second drive failure than RAID01. Quote:
|
Quote:
I realized what you're saying about it being a 0+1 drawing. But with 4 drives like that, 1+0 looks exactly like that doesn't it? With e.g. 6 drives I could have drawn 3 striped groups which would have represented 1+0 more explicitly, while 0+1 would have still been 2 groups with 3 drives in each. Does that make sense? EDIT: Wait a bit.. I think I know what you're saying now... How's this: Code:
SDA SDB SDC SDD |
Quote:
|
Thank you for helping me see it more clearly.
I thought about why they did it like that a bit more, and it makes sense - to me at least - to protect the booting part of the system against degradation a little bit more than root and home so the system is at least bootable. Like you said before it probably doesn't matter much, but if it has to make sense, I'm guessing that's it. |
Hi & welcome! If you feel so, you can mark this as 'Solved', under ThreadTools at top
(so it won't show up on [my 'invention' of an] ANT list ;) ) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM. |