My aplogoies for the confusion. We are suggesting presicely the same thing. I wrote RAID/0 when I should have written RAID/1 -- simple mirroring. I'm spoiled by the SAN.
We can certainly set up the mirror in LVM. The "remote" business is to do with the vagaries of fixing broken things with only a command line interface. I spend much of my time this way. Much easier to just shovel the RAID business off to the hardware. If anything goes wrong in IO-land you don't have to spend time eliminating LVM problems. Perhaps I have been spending too much time in AIX/GPFS lately. Can make you paranoid. I am amenable to any method. On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:44:59 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-08-29 20:45, Matthew Alton wrote: > > Quite true in terms of complexity. The performance difference would > > also be negligible. I'm going for "remotely fixable" with this spec. > > The more things you can consign to the hardware & BIOS the better. The > > iDRAC6 card may moot the point, though. > > I don't see how hardware vs. software RAID1 makes a difference for > "remote fixability". If there's a hardware problem, you're not going to > remotely fix it anyway. > > One big advantange to software RAID1 (or software RAID in general) is > precisely that you don't need special hardware. You could simply take > one of the two RAID disks, plug it a different Linux machine and mount > it. With hardware RAID1, I'm not sure whether that's possible. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
