> On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:00:50AM -0700, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > No Raid 10 is Raid 1 + 0 its strong points are faster writes but slower
> > reads.
>
> RAID 10 reads will actually be faster than RAID 5, but it will require
> more disks. (2n instead of n+1).
There also seems to be a combination of RAID 5 + 0, called RAID 50. It
performs faster than RAID 5, and slower than RAID 10. Disk usage is also
between those two (n+2).
Sander.
