Re: RAID10 Layouts
From: Keld Jørn Simonsen <hidden>
Date: 2009-08-21 20:42:34
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 06:43:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Info@quantum-sci.net writes:quoted
Hello list, Researching RAID10, trying to learn the most advanced system for a 2 SATA drive system. Have two WD 2TB drives for a media computer, and the most important requirement is data redundancy. I realize that RAID is no substitute for backups, but this is a backup for the backups and the purpose here is data safety. The secondary goal is speed enhancement. It appears that RAID10 can give both. First question is on layout of RAID10. In studying the man pages it seems that Far mode gives 95% of the speed of RAID0, but with increased seek for writes. And that Offset retains much of this benefit while increasing efficiency of writes. What should be the preference, Far or Offset? Are they equally as robust?All raid10 layouts offer the same robustness. Which layout is best for you really depends on your use case. Probably the biggest factor will be the average file size. My experience is that with large files the far copies do not cost noticeable write speed while being twice as fast reading as raid1.
The file system elevator makes up for the Far write head movement.
quoted
How safe is the data in Far or Offset mode? If a drive fails, will a complete, usable, bootable system exist on the other drive? (These two are the only drives in the system, which is Debian Testing, Debian kernel 2.6.30-5) Need I make any special Grub settings?I don't think lilo or grub1 can boot from raid10 at all with offset or far copies. With near copies you are identical to a simple raid1 so that would boot.
there is a howto on setting up a system, that can continue runnig, if one disk fails at http://linux-raid.osdl.org/index.php/Preventing_against_a_failing_disk
quoted
How does this look: # mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=raid10 --layout=o2 --metadata=1.2 --chunk=64 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb1On partitions it is save to use 1.1 format. Saves you 4k. Jupey. You should play with the chunksize though and try with and without bitmap and different bitmap sizes. Bitmap costs some write performance but it greatly speeds up resyncs after a crash or temporary drive failure.
I would recommend a bigger chunk size. at least 256 kiB. Best regards keld