Am 03.12.22 um 06:45 schrieb David T-G:

Reindl, et al --

...and then Reindl Harald said...
%
% Am 28.11.22 um 15:46 schrieb David T-G:
% > I don't at this time have a device free to plug in locally to back up the
% > volume to destroy and rebuild as linear, so that will have to wait.  When
% > I do get that chance, though, will that help me get to the awesome goal
% > of actually INCREASING performance by including a RAID0 layer?
%
% stacking layers over layers will *never* increase performance - a pure RAID0
% will but if one disk is dead all is lost

True, and we definitely don't want that.

but you do when i read your posts

% additional RAID0 on top or below another RAID won't help

I could believe that, because what I don't know about RAID would fill a
book, but I thought that the idea of RAID10 speeding up access was that
the first half of the data is on the FIRST half of the /first/ disk
and the second half of the data is on the FIRST half of the /second/
disk and so the heads only move over half the disk for reads.

common sense: in the moment you have already reads and span a RAID0 over 
them the aceess pattern is far waway from first and second disk

common sense: you wrote you are dealing mostly with small files - they 
don't gain from striping because they are typically not striped at all

% your main problem starts by slicing your drives in dozens of partitions and
% "the idea being that each piece of which should take less time to rebuild if
% something fails"
[snip]

Whoops!  You're on the wrong machine.  This one mirrors two disks; that
one is the one that has a bunch.

well, when you mix different machines into the same thread i am out here