I am not sure it has been said, but for a 4 disk raid10,f2 array
you should place the first and the second disk on one controller, and then the 3rd
and 4th on the second controller. Then you would have a copy of all blocks even
if one controller fails.

I believe the order is defined by the order the disks are specified in
on the mdadm --create line.

best regards
keld

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 08:26:55PM -0700, Simon Matthews wrote:
quoted text
> 2010/4/12 Tomáš Dulík <dulik@unart.cz>:
> > Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner napsal(a):
> >>
> >> I cannot quite understand your problem.  As every part of the array
> >> contains it's own metadata, it doesn't matter to md which /dev/sdX a
> >> drive is.  It might matter a bit for boot-time assembly, but actually
> >> that's what UUIDs are for.
> >>
> >
> > I know how UUIDs work.
> > My problem with device names is not a "critical", it's about "user
> > friendliness" of the physical disk management.
> > If a disk fails and I receive email "A Fail event had been detected on md
> > device /dev/md2. It could be related to component device /dev/sdd3", how
> > will I know which disk should be replaced, if the device name is not
> > fixed/persistent? I
> 
> Record the serial number of the disks and  which bay they are in.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html