You are correct. It is RAID1 + RAID0. Whether or not it is better than
RAID5 on the same number of disks is questionable. However RAID50, where
two hardware RAID5 controllers are bonded together with software RAID0,
sounds interesting. Alternatively, using RAID0 to bond two disks
together, for a third disk to a RAID5 set. This could be done with the
old tools, can it be done with the new ones? I have two 2.2GB SCSI disks
and two 4.5GB SCSI disks I'd like to bond the two 2.2GB disks into one
4.4GB RAID0 array and then bond that plus the two 4.5GB disks into a
RAID5 array. Is this do-able?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:11 PM
> To: D. Carlos Knowlton
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RAID "10"
>
>
>
>
> Sorry to ask what may seemingly be another simple
> question, but by
> the email below, may I assume that RAID-10 is a schema in
> which 2 or more
> raid0 stripe sets are bonded together under raid1?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, D. Carlos Knowlton wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does anyone know if it is possible to implement RAID 0+1 in
> Linux? (I
> > assume it's possible, because I've heard Linux folks
> talking about it)
> > Sounds like it would be really fast! How would you
> implement it? (a
> > RAID-newbie/wannabe talking here =-)
> >
> > -ck
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________
> >
> > -Asked about his attitude towards alcohol, a congressman reportedly
> > replied:
> >
> > "If you mean the demon drink that poisons the mind,
> pollutes the body,
> > desecrates family life, and inflames sinner, then I'm
> against it. But if
> > you mean the elixir of Christmas cheer, the shield against
> winter chill,
> > the taxable potion that puts needed funds into public
> coffers to comfort
> > little crippled children, then I'm for it. This is my
> position, and I
> > will not compromise."
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
