On Tuesday 12 April 2011 16:48:14 Markus Falb wrote: > On 12.4.2011 15:02, Marian Marinov wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:56:54 > > rainer-RNrd0m5o0MABOiyIzIsiOw at public.gmane.org wrote: > > > > Yes... but with such RAID10 solution you get only half of the disk > > space... so from 10 2TB drives you get only 10TB instead of 16TB with > > RAID6. > > From a somewhat theoretical view, this is true for standard raid10 but > Linux md raid10 is much more flexible as I understood it. You could do 2 > copys over 2 disks, thats like standard 10. Or you could do 2 copys over > 2 or 3 or ... x disks. Or you could do 3 copys over 3 or 4 or ... x > disks. Do the math. See the manpage for md(4) and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10 > > However, I have to admit that I have no experience with that but would > like to hear about any disadvantages or if I am mislead. I am just > interested. Its like doing RAID50 or RAID60... Again the cheapest solution is RAID6. I really like the software raid in linux, it has good performance. But I have never tested it on such big volumes. And usually it is really hard to put 10 or more drives on a machine without buying a sata controler. Marian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110412/0b3b285b/attachment-0003.sig>