Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:35:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: Scott Hess <scott@avantgo.com> Cc: David Drum <david@mu.org>, FreeBSD DB List <freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Raid configuration Message-ID: <20020416152522.E12575-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204160908060.5530-100000@river.avantgo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Scott Hess wrote: > Both have the same uptime for single-disk failures. For two-disk > failures, RAID10 stays up for 2/3 of the cases, while RAID01 only > stays up in 1/3 of the cases. Hmm, yes, that is the case as well... Based on your example diagram, there are six possible two-disk failure cases: Fails RAID10 RAID0+1 ===== ====== ======= A&B BAD BAD A&C OK OK A&D OK BAD B&C OK BAD B&D OK OK C&D BAD BAD As you said, 2/3 chance of surviving with RAID10, and only 1/3 for RAID0+1. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet - Available for IA32 (Intel x86) and Alpha architectures - IA64, PowerPC, UltraSPARC, and ARM architectures under development - http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-database" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020416152522.E12575-100000>