RE: raid10 vs raid01 type in dmraid

"Gaston, Jason D" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.ataraid
Message-ID <39B20DF628532344BC7A2692CB6AEE070172EE7F@orsmsx420.amr.corp.intel.com>
The [man dmraid] page and [dmraid -l] is backwards for RAID10 vs RAID01
as well.  A "10" should be a "stripe on top of mirrors" and a "01"
should be a "mirror on top of stripes".  We should also list "01" as
"RAID01", not "RAID10" in the man page.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels

Thanks,

Jason


 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] 
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gaston, Jason D
>Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:52 PM
>To: [email protected]; ATARAID (eg, Promise Fasttrak, 
>Highpoint 370) related discussions
>Subject: raid10 vs raid01 type in dmraid
>
>I think that the array for nested raid levels, in metadata.c, may be
>upside down.  When I build a raid0+1 with Intel or Nvidia (one mirror
>array of two stripe arrays), it is reported as a "raid10" with [dmraid
>-s], this should be "raid01".  If I reverse the nesting to raid10, in
>Intel (one stripe array of two mirror arrays), it is reported as a
>"raid01" with [dmraid -s], this should be "raid10".
>
>Can we just reverse the array in metadata.c?
>
>From:
>static const char *stacked_ascii_type[][5] = {
>	{ "raid10", "raid30", "raid40", "raid50", "raid60" },
>	{ "raid01", "raid03", "raid04", "raid05", "raid06" },
>};
>
>To:
>static const char *stacked_ascii_type[][5] = {
>{ "raid01", "raid03", "raid04", "raid05", "raid06" },	
>{ "raid10", "raid30", "raid40", "raid50", "raid60" },
>	
>}; 
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ataraid-list mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ataraid-list
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.