uhmmmmm write-behind is nice,
raid0 have chunk size, don´t?

2011/1/31 NeilBrown [off-list ref]:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:51:32 -0200 Roberto Spadim [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

now, a question....

if raid1 is like raid10 (one disk = raid0)
why not only one raid1 (raid10) software implementation?
for example, if i have 4 disks and i want 4 mirrors.
why not work with only raid10? why the option since we have all
features of raid1 inside raid10?
is it to allow small source code (a small ARM rom)? memory usage? cpu
usage? easy to implement?

It is mostly "historical reasons".
RAID1 already existed.  When I wrote RAID10 I wanted to keep it separate so
as not to break RAID1.  I have never had a good reason to merge the two
implementations.

And RAID1 does have some functionality that RAID10 doesn't, like write-behind.
Also RAID1 doesn't have a chunk size.  RAID10 does.

NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Roberto Spadim
Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html