On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:13:57PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> As a general rule, you're better off relying on backups or RAID to
>> handle such situations anyway. Or seen from another point of view: if
>> it's OK with you to lose an arbitrarily chosen 1/3 or 1/2 of your data,
>> then why would you mind losing it all instead?
>
think we are heading ot, but to add some more info to it anyway.
there are several aspects to look at.
availability - mainly done by looking at raid levels
manageablility - lvm / mdm
backups - only way to do this is backuping up info, raid doesn't help
with rm -fr /
people tend to confuse availability with restoration !
>
> As has been mentioned in another thread, RAID 1 pairs with LVM is pretty
> safe and flexible. The disadvantage is when adding more capacity, you
> have to add drives in pairs.
>
> ZFS (formerly Zetta File System) can do all this and more beside, but
> right now, with one exception, you have to do all the thinking yourself,
> it's not just a matter of adding a new drive and walking away. The
> exception? Very expensive storage appliances from Sun. Those run
> something, OpenSolaris maybe (haven't bothered to look it up), with ZFS.
> Of course, expanding requires you to go back to Sun.
>
> MArk Allums
>
>
>
>
--
"I was raised in the West. The West of Texas. It's pretty close to California.
In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California. "
- George W. Bush
04/08/2000
Los Angeles, CA
in Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
