[NTLUG:Discuss] what IS the fine line between RAID 0+1 and RAID10

[Chris Cox]

Richard Geoffrion wrote:
> Stuart Johnston wrote:
>> Richard Geoffrion wrote:
>>   
>>> So what fundamental piece of information am I missing that allows me to 
>>> understand why RAID-10 is different from RAID 0+1? 
>>>     
>> The main practical difference is that RAID 0+1 can never survive loosing 
>> more than 1 disk at a time.  
> Hmmm... I MAY be getting a clue......  Still it would seem that ...OH OH 
> OH!! I get it!.
> 
> Well in this four disk " RAID 10 " (<-- note the quotes..) set, it's 
> gonna be hard to determine just how this particular RAID was setup.. but 
> I think I understand it when taken to a system greater than FOUR disk.   
> Even with four disks... I think I have it.
> 
> OK.. thanks for the wiki article.  I didn't find that one when I 
> searched.  AWESOME.
> 

>From my own experience, I wouldn't employ RAID 10 unless you have
8 disks.  Just my own opinion.  I'd go with RAID 5 (if you have a
good xor engine) if you only have 4 drives.  I'm not currently
running ANY RAID 10 at the moment.  RAID 6 is nice (again, if you
have decent controller) since you get 2 drive loss reliability...
which in all fairness, is probably all you need.  RAID 10 looks
good, but if you lose the "wrong" drives simultaneously, you're
hosed.