3 ms·
This article explains the difference in more details https://muetsch.io/why-raid-10-is-better-than-raid-01.html https://muetsch.io/why-raid-10-is-better-than-ra
by user5994461 6y ago
This article explains the difference in more details https://muetsch.io/why-raid-10-is-better-than-raid-01.html https://muetsch.io/why-raid-10-is-better-than-raid-01.html
RAID 10 works by stacking pairs of disks, as many pairs as you want, each pair is redundant by nature. It's common to do with 8 or 12 disks, filling the whole front bay of the server. It can survive many drives failing as long as it's not two drives from the same pair.
RAID 01 splits data differently. It's much more likely to lose the whole array if you lose any 2 disks, or god forbids, 3 disks.
RAID 10 is the proper level. RAID 01 is dead and almost nothing supports it, it's most likely a mistake or a typo if you heard about it used in production.
- jugg1es 6y agoOur primary concern was absolute maximum performance on huge numbers of tiny files (terabytes of video cut into single-frame TIFFs) for video processing while also having at least some protection against a single failed drive. We were on a shoestring budget, so we couldn't upgrade our network to use fiber, so a SAN wasn't really feasible at the speeds we needed (SSD's also didn't exist yet). You could be right, but I know that I chose the one with the fastest possible performance and made sure there was an audible alarm if a disk failed.