Comments on: Comparing RAID 10 and RAID 01

By: stagestruckkids.org

stagestruckkids.org — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:13:36 +0000

It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d most certainly donate to this brilliant blog!
I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google
account. I look forward to brand new updates and will share this website with my Facebook group.

Chat soon!

By: Joy Fano

Joy Fano — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 04:24:59 +0000

This article helps to enlighten my mind now.
Thank you Sir.

By: Scott Alan Miller

Scott Alan Miller — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:29:32 +0000

I’m not sure that I would think of them as primary and secondary. One is simply nearer to the block device and the other nearer to the final controller. Which is primary, the peek of a pyramid or its base? Each is primary depending on perception.

But how you are thinking is correct, if all other things are equal you want your reliability as low in the stack as possible. At least when dealing with blind reliability as in replicated block devices.

By: A.J. Stringham

A.J. Stringham — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:30:16 +0000

Scott,

Interesting read. So, if I read it correctly, is it almost a primary and secondary RAID, and the first number (1 in 10 v. 0 in 01) is primary and the second is secondary, which is why 01 is so much riskier, as opposed to 10, where RAID1, or redundancy, is primary. I know that might not be the most perfect way to explain it but that’s what I got out of it.

Thanks for the read!
A.J.

By: Chris H

Chris H — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:46:45 +0000

Great article! I’ve enjoyed all your articles on RAID levels and I hope there will be more to come. Thanks!

By: JJoyner1985

JJoyner1985 — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:12:33 +0000

That was a very interesting read, SAM. Thanks for taking the time to spell this one out. MY head is hurting a little from it, and I’ll probably have to re-read it. However, I see the general ideas that you are communicating.