From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 08:20:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B039D6A for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC4E33B for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r0F8K1UR027443 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0F8K1aD027442; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:01 GMT Message-Id: <201301150820.r0F8K1aD027442@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Alexander Motin Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alexander Motin List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:20:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alexander Motin To: Allen Landsidel Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:12:14 +0200 That is clear and I had guess you mean it, but why do you insist that such RAID0+1 variant should even exist if it has no benefits over RAID10, and why it should be explicitly available to user? On 15.01.2013 04:51, Allen Landsidel wrote: > They are not variants in terminology, they are different raid levels. > Raid0+1 is two RAID-0 arrays, mirrored into a RAID-1. if one of the > disks fails, that entire RAID-0 is offline and must be rebuilt, and all > redundancy is lost. A RAID-10 is composed of N raid-1 disks combined > into a RAID-0. If one disk fails, only that particular RAID-1 is > degraded, and the redundancy of the others is maintained. > > 0+1 cannot survive two failed disks no matter how many are in the > array. 10 can survive half the disks failing, if it's the right half. > > This is something people who've never used more than 4 disks fail to > grasp, but those of us with 6 (or many many more) know very well. > > On 1/14/2013 21:46, Alexander Motin wrote: >> There could be variants in terminology, but in fact for most of users >> they are the same. If you have opinion why they should be treated >> differently, please explain it. -- Alexander Motin