Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Saturday 27 September 2008 09:32:27 pm Bill Davidsen wrote:
The Fedora installer has insisted on requiring four drives for raid-10
install, and then not using raid-10, but rather raid-1+0 which is *NOT* the
same thing. Any hope that this could be fixed in fc10, as it is a real PITA
to fight a way around it and get a proper raid configured.
This is a real performance issue, see linux-raid discussion in archives
about this.
Raid 10 requires at least 4 drives. and then it needs even numbers of disks to
grow. so you could do 4,6,8,10,12 etc. an odd disk is should only be used
as a hot spare. otherwise it would cause degregation to the array
As I said, raid10 is not the same thing as raid1+0. And since the kernel and
installer use the same term for different things, I would say the install should
match the kernel code and doc, and not have the user confused. Using the correct
term for what the installer really does, raid1+0, would confuse no one.
The man pages for raid and mdadm are helpful in understanding the difference
between 1+0 and 10.
md1 : active raid10 sda2[0] sdd2[3] sdc2[2] sdb2[1]
624623104 blocks 256K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU]
looks like its right to me. this box was installed F-8 and was yum updated
to rawhide. my box with raid 10 is using the raid 10 module. i have
4x320gb drives and get great performance out of the array.
hdparm -tT /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
Timing cached reads: 4868 MB in 1.99 seconds = 2441.54 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 256 MB in 3.02 seconds = 84.75 MB/sec
Dennis
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
