Is ccd the recommended way to go now instead of raidframe for a simple two-disk raid1 mirror? I've had a touble-free experience with raidframe, is there any compelling reason to switch to ccd ?On 5/5/05, Ian Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Niall O'Higgins wrote:
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:10:58PM -0700, Gary Clemans-Gibbon wrote:
The only thing is that I run 2 HDDs in RAID1 mirror with RAIDFRAME and so my kernel is generic + pseudo-device raid (if I remember correctly - it was a while ago I last did this and I've lost my notes).
For such a setup I recommend ditching RAIDFrame for ccd(4), which is in GENERIC and as such actively maintained.
The way I see it: cheap, personal mirroring/striping setups, use ccd(4). Real RAID, use ami(4) or maybe one of those external box things.
Except that Gary is using a mirror and ccd(4) claims to provide either concatenated or interleaved disks, not mirroring:
"A ccd may be either serially concatenated or interleaved."
and as such provides no tolerance for disk failures:
"WARNINGS If just one (or more) of the disks in a ccd fails, the entire file system will be lost."
I use RAIDframe and haven't used ccd, so I'm just going by what the man page says...
-- Ian
You must be looking on your 3.6 or earlier box. Take a look at the revised man page on line (and presumably 3.7):
A ccd may be either serially concatenated, interleaved, or mirrored. To serially concatenate partitions, specify an interleave factor of 0. Mir- roring configurations require an even number of components.
It still won't provide all of the configurations of RAID(4), but it'll do simple mirroring.
--jay
.
Jay Savage wrote:
