| From: | Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ted Byers <r(dot)ted(dot)byers(at)rogers(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Janning Vygen <vygen(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |
| Date: | 2006-04-12 19:13:03 |
| Message-ID: | 443D513F.3040507@3times25.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:53:01PM -0400, Ted Byers wrote:
>> I take it that "RAID 1+0" refers to a combination of Raid 1 and RAID 0.
>> What about RAID 10? I am curious because RAID 10 has come out since the
>> last time I took a look at RAID technology. I am not sure what it actually
>> does differently from RAID 5.
>
> AIUI, RAID 10 = RAID 1+0. Lame, I know. Similarly, some people have
> invented RAID 50 = RAID 5+0.
>
> Not sure if that's the official definition though, but that's the way
> I've seen it used.
Useful info on RAID definitions:
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-04-12 19:18:12 | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-12 19:02:19 | Re: Hardware related question: 3ware 9500S |