...and on Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 03:44:44PM -0500, Mitch Pirtle used the keyboard:
>
> You are right, I now remember that setup was originally called "RAID
> 10 plus 1", and I believe is was an incorrect statement from an
> overzealous salesman ;-)
>
Just an afterthought - that could well be the unfortunate consequence of
salesmen specializing in sales as an act rather than the goods they were
selling - it might be that he/she was referring to the specifics of the
concrete configuration they were selling you (or trying to sell you),
which should, in the case you were mentioning, probably be called "a
RAID10 array with a hotspare drive" - that is, it would be preconfigured
to, upon the failure of one of array members, detect the failed drive and
automatically replace it with one that has been sitting there all the time,
doing nothing but waiting for one of its active companions to fail.
But this already falls into the category that has, so far, probably
caused the vast majority of misunderstandings, failed investments and
grey hair in RAID, namely data safety, and I don't feel particularly
qualified for getting into specifics of this at this moment, as it
happens to be 2AM, I had a couple of beers (my friend's birthday's due)
and I'm dying to get some sleep. :)
HTH, cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
gregab at p0f dot net
