16.01.2019 21:15, Chris Murphy пишет: > > Btrfs raid10 really should not be called raid10. It sets up the wrong > user expectation entirely. It's more like raid0+1, It is actually more like RAID-1E which is supported by some hardware RAID HBA. The difference is that RAID-1E is usually using strict sequential block placement algorithm and assumes disks of equal size, while btrfs raid10 is more flexible in selecting where next mirror pair is allocated.
