Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ruslan Sivak wrote:
>
>> Yea, I think for these reasons I will use lvm. I have set up a
>> system as follows:
>>
>> /boot raid 1 200mb 4 drives no spares (I guess this makes 4 copies of
>> the data?)
>
> What't the point of putting this on more than 2 drives?
>
Well for one thing, if 2 drives fail and it doens't get a chance to
rebuild, then I still have 2 good drives. Another thing is if a drive
fails and the spare is in the wrong location, and the spare becomes the
boot drive, it won't be able to boot, but if all 4 drives are copies of
each other, then everything is well and good.
>> / 10gb on lvm>> /data 50gb on lvm>> /backup 250gb on lvm>>>> rest of space left free to allow for resizing and adding of >> partitions with lvm>>>> I will pull out a drive tommorow and see how resilient this is. Does >> this sound like a good solution?>> It is versatile, if you don't know where the additional space will be > needed but don't think mounting it as separate partitions in > subdirectories will be handy. I forgot to mention the other reason I > like straight RAID1 installs - you can easily clone a machine with all > of its current software by pulling a drive, booting it in a new > machine and rebuilding the raids on both.>I don't see why I can't pull out 2 drives out of this install (like 1
and 3), put them into another machine and let it rebuild itself.
Russ
Highlight