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 at 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 > -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/