not actually. There's overhead with doing that. plus WHEN there's a disk failure your raid0 is toast and your raid 1 is degraded. Why not jsut run 4 disks since they are so cheap nowadays and not have to deal witht he complications?
Miguel Medalha wrote:
If you only have 2 drives there's not much you can do to avoid concurrent access. The killer is head seek time - if you have your only 2 drives tied together in any kind of raid and the head needs to be in 2 places at once it doesn't matter much how you laid out the partitions. Reads can be sort-of independent on raid1 but writes make both seek to the same place.
That's not what I was referring to. I meant, for example, that if you have on the same disks a RAID-0 containing data that is very frequently used and a RAID-1 containing data that is rarelly accessed, then you still beneffit from the qualities of both RAID types despite them being on the same physical disks. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Scanned with Copfilter Version 0.84beta2 (P3Scan 2.2.1) AntiSpam: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 AntiVirus: ClamAV 0.90.2/3283 - Tue May 22 18:56:44 2007 by Markus Madlener @ http://www.copfilter.org