From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 26 15:03:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24DB1065672 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:03:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jherman@dichotomia.fr) Received: from mail.dichotomia.fr (hydrogen.dichotomia.net [91.121.82.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9424E8FC0C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.18] (unknown [178.33.164.134]) (Authenticated sender: kha@dichotomia.fr) by sslmail.dichotomia.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FED53DD070; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:00:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E2ED74B.9000807@dichotomia.fr> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:03:39 +0200 From: Jerome Herman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Swiger References: <4E2E9F24.1040108@dichotomia.fr> <20110726114438.GA86683@icarus.home.lan> <4E2EB814.9040704@dichotomia.fr> <20110726131655.GA88280@icarus.home.lan> <4E2ECE62.4050605@dichotomia.fr> <23BD778B-B9A4-43ED-97C6-4DF2D13F80F2@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <23BD778B-B9A4-43ED-97C6-4DF2D13F80F2@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (sslmail.dichotomia.fr); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making world but no kernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:03:35 -0000 On 26/07/2011 16:58, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Jerome Herman wrote: >> Actually it is Raid 10 of a sort. Three first halves of the three disk concatenated and mirrored on the three second half of the same drives. > There's a significant problem right there. Not only will that configuration badly degrade the performance of the RAID volume, it also compromises the goal of redundancy which RAID-1 is supposed to provide. > > Regards, Disk are interweaved, so the performances are quite good (about 160% of a single drive) and the redundancy is here. Any single drive can fail, and the other two will be there to provide data. Basically the first plesk is a-b-c, and the second is b-c-a, so everything should be fine.