Re: what's wrong with RAID-10? (was "Re: moving a working array")

[Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net>]

Am 27.06.22 um 20:52 schrieb Wols Lists:
> On 27/06/2022 19:41, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 27.06.22 um 17:10 schrieb Wols Lists:
>>> On 27/06/2022 11:41, David T-G wrote:
>>>> Wol, et al --
>>>>
>>>> ...and then Wols Lists said...
>>>> %
>>>> % On 24/06/2022 15:09, Wilson Jonathan wrote:
>>>> % > On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 08:38 -0500, o1bigtenor wrote:
>>>> % > >
>>>> % > > I have a working (no issues) raid-10 array in one box.
>>>> %
>>>> % Bummer. It's a raid-10. A raid-1 would have been easier.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> This tripped me.  I presumed that the reason for -10, not least because
>>>> he also said "these 4 drives", was because the array space is bigger 
>>>> than
>>>> just one hard drive size, ie 6T on 4ea 3T drives.  How would RAID-1 
>>>> work
>>>> for that storage?  And why would it be easier than RAID-10?
>>>>
>>> Just that raid-1 would have been a simple case of two drives, each a 
>>> backup of the other. Keep one safe, put the other in the new system.
>>>
>>> With raid-10, it's much more complicated - you can't just do that :-(
>>
>> you can easily do that with RAID10
> 
> Only if all the disks are the same size ... and an even number

in other words: in every typical usecase
how does RAID1 work with different disk sizes?

the point is that "With raid-10, it's much more complicated" is simply 
wrong unledss you say "it can be more complicated if you have a strange 
setup"