On 4 October 2013 17:00, Keith Edmunds <kae@???> wrote:
> It's not really RAID-10 in the commonly-understood sense, and whilst it
> may have good read performance, I suspect it will be significantly slower
> writing. I've not used that version of "RAID-10", and I don't think I
> would.
so it's effectively, if I understand this right. not redundant AT ALL in
terms of a disc dying and taking the data with it.
AFAICT it saves two (or more) copies of each block, but it doesn't ensure
that those copies are on separate discs. so there could be 2 mirrors of a
block on the same drive thereby completely negating any benefit for that
particular block. It also won't improve speed of read for that particular
block because if the drive is busy reading another block the system can't
go to "another disc" to get this block because it just ain't there.
Likewise it will halve the write speed for this particular block because it
can't parallelise a write to each disc independently but must queue the two
copies for writing to the one disc sequentially.
In short, it's a completely flawed idea IMHO (of the Not So Humble variety
:-p)
--
Daniel Llewellyn
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
