[Tfug] Crappy USB LVM/Software RAID10 performance?

[Bowie J. Poag]

Nope. I stopped doing things for free when I got a job. :)


Jeffry Johnston wrote:
> I trust that you fixed those Wikipedia errors.
> Jeff
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Bowie J. Poag <bpoag at comcast.net> wrote:
>   
>> Damn straight. Should I ever enter into a disagreement while motoring, I
>> threaten to reach for my glove compartment. Where I keep my gloves.
>>
>>
>> In Zack's defense, the whole subject of RAID levels is absolutely peppered
>> with bad information and bad definitions out there written by people who
>> don't work directly with the technology, only know the subject
>> third-handedly, or otherwise don't know what the hell they're talking about
>> in general. I can point you to a half-dozen pages that say RAID5 is the
>> safest RAID level to store your data at---a statement that is categorically
>> and empirically false. That doesn't stop it from making the rounds. I'm
>> looking at the Wikipedia page, and even it gets it wrong in some places.
>>
>> (Example: Single disk failures in RAID5 arrays do NOT affect storage
>> capacity, no more than my car disappears when I get a flat tire. In RAID5,
>> The contents of the missing/dead drive are reproduced logically via parity
>> reconstruction. The capacity of the array does not change.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bowie
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>