From owner-freebsd-database Tue Apr 16 13:35:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-database@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57B337B405 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (cdillon@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21584; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:35:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:35:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon To: Scott Hess Cc: David Drum , FreeBSD DB List Subject: Re: Raid configuration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020416152522.E12575-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-database@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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