From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 15 19:00:01 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 831FB840 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:00:01 +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 5D244F77 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:00:01 +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 r0FJ01sh069869 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r0FJ01an069865; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:00:01 GMT Message-Id: <201301151900.r0FJ01an069865@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Allen Landsidel 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: Allen Landsidel List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:00:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/166589; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Allen Landsidel To: Alexander Motin Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/166589: atacontrol(8) incorrectly treats RAID10 and 0+1 the same Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:53:58 -0500 On 1/15/2013 13:10, Alexander Motin wrote: > You may have some point from the boot side, but do you have reliable > information about which controllers support RAID0+1 and which RAID10? Not beyond what the techdocs say for a given card. Is that a valid reason to present them as the same to the user? > Also, if user got single failure in RAID10, it > should not feel much more comfortable then if it would be RAID0+1, as > second failure still can destroy the data This is simply not true. I currently have two 12-disk RAID-10 arrays. A failure of one disk (which has already happened) leaves ten other in-use disks that could potentially fail without causing data loss. If that system were RAID0+1, after a single disk fails the chance that another disk failure will result in downtime and data loss is 100% -- not 9%. RAID-10 is *much* safer than RAID0+1. The more disks you add, the safer it gets. The more disks you add to a 0+1, the *less* safe it gets. It seems you still aren't really grasping the difference, regardless of HW vs. SW questions. > all that required > is replace failed disks, boot from any FreeBSD install disk and run > rebuild from the command line This strikes me as a comment from someone not experienced in working with colocated/remote systems. Without an IPMI subsystem that can remotely mount disk images, you're talking minutes (or hours) of downtime while a support technician brings a bootable optical or usb device to the machine and sets up the KVM-over-IP. Presenting RAID10 and RAID0+1 as the same thing is *wrong*. They aren't the same. I will leave it at that. The project and maintainers can decide to fix the issue or not. I've long since abandoned the machine that had that controller and have no vested interest any longer.