Re: raid 10f2 vs 1 on 2 drives

[William Thompson <wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:36:12AM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/05/12 21:33, William Thompson wrote:
> >I understand that raid 10 f2 is slower on writes due to the location of the
> >2nd copy.  My question is, if lots of writes are performed, could this
> >layout wearout the drives quicker than raid 1?
> 
> No, wear is not going to be significantly different.
> 
> You didn't say whether you are talking about hard disks (where

Sorry about that (Chief).  Yes, I was refering to hard drives.

> location makes a difference, but "wear" on the drive motor is
> insignificant to the disk's expected lifetime), or flash disks

I was thinking about how much more head movement there would be to write the
2nd copy of the data.

> (where people often worry about "wear", though location is
> irrelevant and wear is also irrelevant for most uses of all but the
> most cheapo disks).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html