RE: raid10 vs raid01 type in dmraid

"Gaston, Jason D" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.ataraid
Message-ID <39B20DF628532344BC7A2692CB6AEE07017A2D5D@orsmsx420.amr.corp.intel.com>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Heinz Mauelshagen [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:58 AM
>To: Gaston, Jason D
>Cc: [email protected]; ATARAID (eg, Promise Fasttrak, 
>Highpoint 370) related discussions
>Subject: Re: raid10 vs raid01 type in dmraid
>
>On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:18:14AM -0700, Gaston, Jason D wrote:
>> >
>> >Eg, PC Magazine:
>> >"RAID 10, RAID 100 - Speed and Fault Tolerance
>> >RAID 10 is RAID 1 + 0. The drives are striped for performance 
>> >(RAID 0), and all striped drives are duplicated (RAID 1) for 
>> >fault tolerance."
>> >
>> >Yes, I konw, there's different (aargh!) definitions out there.
>> >
>> >Like I said: the top -> bottom of the stack definition is preferable
>> >to me (you reach the mirror first and the stripe second 
>while walking
>> >the stack from the top to the bottom).
>> >
>> >We just got to hold on to one definition in dmraid,
>> >
>> >Heinz
>> >
>> 
>> Ok, so the dmraid definition is not going to change.
>
>I'ld much rather avoid it :-)
>
>> 
>> Do you see an advantage in putting the RAID1 vs. RAID0 on 
>the bottom for
>> being able to perform rebuilds easier?  I need to decide 
>which way to do
>> with isw.
>
>Talking about either a mirror on top of stripes or a stripe on 
>top of mirrors,
>it is merely a question of IO minimization on rebuilds.
>
>Ie. when a stripe below a mirror breaks, you've got to 
>resilver the whole
>stripe set, hence writing 2 or more drives rather than just one disk in
>a mirror set beneath a stripe.
>
>
>With respect to ease of rebuilds at the programming level, there's no
>difference in changing the mapping of a top level mirror to do a full
>resync vs. a bottom level mirror.
>
>
>Getting back to your decision: you could support both ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>Heinz
>
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jason
>

After adding support for RAID10 to isw.c, what will we need to do in
order for this to be supported in anaconda, so that we can install to a
RAID10 nested volume?  I don't see support for nested RAID levels in
dmraid.py.

Thanks,

Jason
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.