> Firstly, forget 0+1, use RAID10. I don't mean to hijack the tread but I have a related question.
I see from reading the mdadm man page that a RAID10 array can be created directly from individual drives. I assume this gives better performance than creating two raid1 arrays and then using raid0 to attach the two raid1 meta devices. Is this the case? Also, I notice when building new kernels that there are no kernel modules for RAID10. I haven't yet tested this myself (although I have (4) 300GB on hand to start testing in the next few weeks), but would this create a problem when trying to create/mount a RAID10 meta device? > RAID5 is fast for reads, slow for writes, and you lose the capacity of 1 disk. > RAID10 is *fast* for reads *and* writes, but you lose the capacity of half > your disks. I had a terrible experience with my array when it was configured as raid5. It worked well for samba shares with lots of reads and few writes, but when I tried to use it in a heavy write environment, the performance was terrible and the array would break and individual drive would become out of sync. mdadm would of course automatically re-sync the drives once the writes completed. -- [email protected] mailing list
