Here's a short description of what is supported in the Linux RAID patches. Some of this information is absolutely basic RAID info, but I've added a few notices about what's special in the Linux implementation of the levels. Just skip this section if you know RAID.
The current RAID patches for Linux supports the following levels:
Linear mode
Two or more disks are combined into one physical device. The disks are ``appended'' to each other, so writing linearly to the RAID device will fill up disk 0 first, then disk 1 and so on. The disks does not have to be of the same size. In fact, size doesn't matter at all here
There is no redundancy in this level. If one disk crashes you will most probably lose all your data. You can however be lucky to recover some data, since the filesystem will just be missing one large consecutive chunk of data.
The read and write performance will not increase for single reads/writes. But if several users use the device, you may be lucky that one user effectively is using the first disk, and the other user is accessing files which happen to reside on the second disk. If that happens, you will see a performance gain.
RAID-0
Also called ``stripe'' mode. The devices should (but need not) have the same size. Operations on the array will be split on the devices; for example, a large write could be split up as 4 kB to disk 0, 4 kB to disk 1, 4 kB to disk 2, then 4 kB to disk 0 again, and so on. If one device is much larger than the other devices, that extra space is still utilized in the RAID device, but you will be accessing this larger disk alone, during writes in the high end of your RAID device. This of course hurts performance.
Like linear, there is no redundancy in this level either. Unlike linear mode, you will not be able to rescue any data if a drive fails. If you remove a drive from a RAID-0 set, the RAID device will not just miss one consecutive block of data, it will be filled with small holes all over the device. e2fsck or other filesystem recovery tools will probably not be able to recover much from such a device.
The read and write performance will increase, because reads and writes are done in parallel on the devices. This is usually the main reason for running RAID-0. If the busses to the disks are fast enough, you can get very close to N*P MB/sec.
RAID-1
This is the first mode which actually has redundancy. RAID-1 can be used on two or more disks with zero or more spare-disks. This mode maintains an exact mirror of the information on one disk on the other disk(s). Of Course, the disks must be of equal size. If one disk is larger than another, your RAID device will be the size of the smallest disk.
If up to N-1 disks are removed (or crashes), all data are still intact. If there are spare disks available, and if the system (eg. SCSI drivers or IDE chipset etc.) survived the crash, reconstruction of the mirror will immediately begin on one of the spare disks, after detection of the drive fault.
Write performance is often worse than on a single device, because identical copies of the data written must be sent to every disk in the array. With large RAID-1 arrays this can be a real problem, as you may saturate the PCI bus with these extra copies. This is in fact one of the very few places where Hardware RAID solutions can have an edge over Software solutions - if you use a hardware RAID card, the extra write copies of the data will not have to go over the PCI bus, since it is the RAID controller that will generate the extra copy. Read performance is good, especially if you have multiple readers or seek-intensive workloads. The RAID code employs a rather good read-balancing algorithm, that will simply let the disk whose heads are closest to the wanted disk position perform the read operation. Since seek operations are relatively expensive on modern disks (a seek time of 6 ms equals a read of 123 kB at 20 MB/sec), picking the disk that will have the shortest seek time does actually give a noticeable performance improvement.
RAID-4
This RAID level is not used very often. It can be used on three or more disks. Instead of completely mirroring the information, it keeps parity information on one drive, and writes data to the other disks in a RAID-0 like way. Because one disk is reserved for parity information, the size of the array will be (N-1)*S, where S is the size of the smallest drive in the array. As in RAID-1, the disks should either be of equal size, or you will just have to accept that the S in the (N-1)*S formula above will be the size of the smallest drive in the array.
If one drive fails, the parity information can be used to reconstruct all data. If two drives fail, all data is lost.
The reason this level is not more frequently used, is because the parity information is kept on one drive. This information must be updated every time one of the other disks are written to. Thus, the parity disk will become a bottleneck, if it is not a lot faster than the other disks. However, if you just happen to have a lot of slow disks and a very fast one, this RAID level can be very useful.
RAID-5
This is perhaps the most useful RAID mode when one wishes to combine a larger number of physical disks, and still maintain some redundancy. RAID-5 can be used on three or more disks, with zero or more spare-disks. The resulting RAID-5 device size will be (N-1)*S, just like RAID-4. The big difference between RAID-5 and -4 is, that the parity information is distributed evenly among the participating drives, avoiding the bottleneck problem in RAID-4.
If one of the disks fail, all data are still intact, thanks to the parity information. If spare disks are available, reconstruction will begin immediately after the device failure. If two disks fail simultaneously, all data are lost. RAID-5 can survive one disk failure, but not two or more.
Both read and write performance usually increase, but can be hard to predict how much. Reads are similar to RAID-0 reads, writes can be either rather expensive (requiring read-in prior to write, in order to be able to calculate the correct parity information), or similar to RAID-1 writes. The write efficiency depends heavily on the amount of memory in the machine, and the usage pattern of the array. Heavily scattered writes are bound to be more expensive.
--------------------------------------------------------
Spare disks
Spare disks are disks that do not take part in the RAID set until one of the active disks fail. When a device failure is detected, that device is marked as ``bad'' and reconstruction is immediately started on the first spare-disk available.
Thus, spare disks add a nice extra safety to especially RAID-5 systems that perhaps are hard to get to (physically). One can allow the system to run for some time, with a faulty device, since all redundancy is preserved by means of the spare disk.
You cannot be sure that your system will keep running after a disk crash though. The RAID layer should handle device failures just fine, but SCSI drivers could be broken on error handling, or the IDE chipset could lock up, or a lot of other things could happen.
Also, once reconstruction to a hot-spare begins, the RAID layer will start reading from all the other disks to re-create the redundant information. If multiple disks have built up bad blocks over time, the reconstruction itself can actually trigger a failure on one of the "good" disks. This will lead to a complete RAID failure. If you do frequent backups of the entire filesystem on the RAID array, then it is highly unlikely that you would ever get in this situation - this is another very good reason for taking frequent backups. Remember, RAID is not a substitute for backups.
Julgo que vi isso num site de reviews, não sei qual...