Wrong, any three disks can fail. If the one RAID has only
one faulty disk, the other RAID can have any number of
faulty disks without loosing data.
>
> With RAID-10:
>
> RAID-0 --------> RAID-1 (D0,D0)
> |--> RAID-1 (D1,D1)
> |--> RAID-1 (D2,D2)
> |--> RAID-1 (D3,D3)
> |--> RAID-1 (D4,D4)
> (five disks used for data, one from each mirror can fail)
>
> With RAID-50:
>
> RAID-0 --------> RAID-5 (D0,D2,D4,D6,P0)
> |--> RAID-5 (D1,D3,D5,D7,P0)
>
> (two disks wasted only one from each RAID-5 can fail)
>
> I believe that I/O performance would be similar for each
> configuration. I'll try to run some tests in the next few days.
I'd guess that depends on the access patterns.
-- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet. For sending spam use mailto:razor-report@daimi.au.dk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/