Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161135AbWASSgi (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:36:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030318AbWASSgh (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:36:37 -0500 Received: from kepler.fjfi.cvut.cz ([147.32.6.11]:35468 "EHLO kepler.fjfi.cvut.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030322AbWASSgh (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:36:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:36:12 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Drab To: Phillip Susi cc: govind raj , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID 5+0 support In-Reply-To: <43CFCBB2.3050003@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: References: <43CFCBB2.3050003@cfl.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 643 Lines: 15 On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Phillip Susi wrote: > Why on earth would you want to stripe two raid-5's instead of using one raid-5 > that is twice as big? You'd get more usable disk space that way. Speed is the issue here, I believe. By stripping two RAID-5 arrays you ought to get the reliability of the RAID-5 but with considerably higher speed. That's basically why RAID-50 exists, I think. Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/