Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Tom Lane writes: > > > >>Is there any rhyme or reason to the various "RAID n" designations? >>Or were they just invented on the spur of the moment? >> >> > >The paper that introduced the term RAID used a numerical classification >for the various schemes. (So I guess the answer is yes.) The traditional >levels are: > >0 Nonredundant >1 Mirrored >2 Memory-style ECC >3 Bit-interleaved parity >4 Block-interleaved parity >5 Block-interleaved distributed parity >[Hennessy & Patterson] > >There are also other levels. One poster talked about RAID 10 which >appears to be a mirrored RAID 5. > > > No Raid 10 is Raid 1 + 0 its strong points are faster writes but slower reads.
- Bill ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
