On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Mark Allums wrote:
> I also think that RAID 10 is pretty simple to understand. Take four
> disks. Make two pairs. Mirror each pair (RAID 1), then stripe across
> the pairs (RAID 0). It's just a combination.
That's just the most basic layout for raid-10... It can get a
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009, Mark Allums wrote:
>> Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
>> joined with LVM? Capacity can be dynamically added with pairs of disks.
>
>
> Only one: simplicity. It would make it easier for someone to
> understand, in the beginning.
Well, md-
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> I'm currently in my third day of rebuilding a machine that had /boot and /
> on an LVM volume on raided disks. After one drive died, I ended up in a
> weird mode where LVM was mounting one of the component drives, rather than
> the raid vol
randall wrote:
Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:50:34PM -0500, Mark Allums
(m...@allums.com) wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
joined with LVM? Capacity can be dynamically added with pairs of
disks.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:05:32AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:09:15AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> (b...@iguanasuicide.net) wrote:
>
> > >> Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
> > >> joined with LVM?
> > >
> > >Speed.
> >
> > No
Tapani Tarvainen writes:
>> What load of gunk will be dumped into / to take it bigger than 500 MB?
>
> I've got a box where /lib takes 200MB now, of which /lib/modules is
> 140MB - and that's per kernel, during kernel updates it temporarily
> doubles, taking /lib to 340MB or thereabouts.
>
> I do'
Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:50:34PM -0500, Mark Allums (m...@allums.com) wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
joined with LVM? Capacity can be dynamically added with pairs of disks.
On
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 08:50:34PM -0500, Mark Allums (m...@allums.com) wrote:
>> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>> Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
>>> joined with LVM? Capacity can be dynamically added with pairs of disks.
>> Only one: simplicity. It would make it
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:09:15AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
(b...@iguanasuicide.net) wrote:
> >> Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
> >> joined with LVM?
> >
> >Speed.
>
> Not much, if any. LVM can stripe data across pvs ala RAID-0.
Well, then you are doin
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 02:14:32PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty (dtu...@vianet.ca)
wrote:
> What load of gunk will be dumped into / to take it bigger than 500 MB?
I've got a box where /lib takes 200MB now, of which /lib/modules is
140MB - and that's per kernel, during kernel updates it temporarily
do
Mark Allums wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:34:09PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
Not really answering your question directly, but may I suggest, if
cost is not *absolutely* critical, that you consider RAID 10? If it
is a server, then certainly you will want to get away
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:34:09PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
Not really answering your question directly, but may I suggest, if cost
is not *absolutely* critical, that you consider RAID 10? If it is a
server, then certainly you will want to get away from a three-drive
In <20090409181432.ga6...@blitz.hooton>, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>Does encrypting root counteract the age-old
>wisdom that physical acess to the hardware will allow root compromise?
For the most part, yes. But, when so configured, it also makes the box
incapable of booting unattended.
--
Boyd S
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:43:17PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Douglas A. Tutty [2009.04.09.1532 +0200]:
> > > On the other hand, having / in LVM means:
> > > * you can enlarge / when necessary;
> >
> > You should never have to enlarge a 500 MB /
>
> I bet you'll be wrong in 10 y
In <20090409135738.ga4...@hamsu.tarvainen.info>, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:35:57AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty
(dtu...@vianet.ca) wrote:
>> Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
>> joined with LVM?
>
>Speed.
Not much, if any. LVM can stripe dat
also sprach Douglas A. Tutty [2009.04.09.1532 +0200]:
> > On the other hand, having / in LVM means:
> > * you can enlarge / when necessary;
>
> You should never have to enlarge a 500 MB /
I bet you'll be wrong in 10 years.
> > * you can encrypt / if desired;
>
> Why would you need / encrypted
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:32:47AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty (dtu...@vianet.ca)
wrote:
> > Yes, leaving / out of LVM does give you a more complete
> > environment to work with when system crashes in a way that LVM
> > (the volume group containing /) is inaccessible.
> > It doesn't help much though
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:35:57AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty (dtu...@vianet.ca)
wrote:
> Is there an advantage of software raid10 over multiple raid1 arrays
> joined with LVM?
Speed.
Also reduced complexity, if you can forgo LVM entirely.
Disadvantages are slightly bigger danger of data loss
and
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:34:09PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
> Not really answering your question directly, but may I suggest, if cost
> is not *absolutely* critical, that you consider RAID 10? If it is a
> server, then certainly you will want to get away from a three-drive RAID
> 5. A RAID 1
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:00:40AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:02:26PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> (h...@debian.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Apr 2009, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > I suggest that a small (1GB-4GB) partition for simple md-raid1 be used for
> > /
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:59:48PM +1000, Alex Samad (a...@samad.com.au) wrote:
> > > I would create 3 partitions on the 500GB drives
> > > 500M /boot (ext2 or ext3)
> > > 20G / (ext3)
> >
> > Could you explain the rationale behind this?
> /boot can be loaded or and I like to have a resuce image
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 09:45:21AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 02:17:03PM +1000, Alex Samad (a...@samad.com.au)
> wrote:
>
> > > Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
> > > array to a RAID1 and use two of the 500Gb drives for thhe new boot
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:02:26PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
(h...@debian.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > One suggestion: think very carefully about whether you really want to do
> > this.
>
> I second that. It is really not smart to have / (or /boot) in
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 02:17:03PM +1000, Alex Samad (a...@samad.com.au) wrote:
> > Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
> > array to a RAID1 and use two of the 500Gb drives for thhe new boot
> > drive with LVM (With /boot / /home and so on on it).
>
> so you are goin
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:34:57PM +0100, Kelly Harding wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My server has got debian on it currently in the following configuration:
>
> 250Gb boot drive with partitions for / /boot /home
> 3x500Gb drives in RAID5 array, with XFS on top directly.
>
> Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb dr
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:34:09PM -0500, Mark Allums (m...@allums.com) wrote:
> Not really answering your question directly, but may I suggest, if cost
> is not *absolutely* critical, that you consider RAID 10? If it is a
> server, then certainly you will want to get away from a three-drive
Kelly Harding wrote:
Hi,
My server has got debian on it currently in the following configuration:
250Gb boot drive with partitions for / /boot /home
3x500Gb drives in RAID5 array, with XFS on top directly.
Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
array to a RAID1 and u
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> One suggestion: think very carefully about whether you really want to do
> this.
I second that. It is really not smart to have / (or /boot) in LVM if you
can help it.
I suggest that a small (1GB-4GB) partition for simple md-raid1 be used for
/ inste
Kelly Harding wrote:
Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
array to a RAID1 and use two of the 500Gb drives for thhe new boot
drive with LVM (With /boot / /home and so on on it).
Any suggestions gratefully recieved.
One suggestion: think very carefully about whet
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 11:57:59AM -0700, Mike Castle
(dalgoda+deb...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:
> >
> > Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
> > array to a RAID1 and use two of the 500Gb drives for thhe new boot
> > driv
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:
>
> Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
> array to a RAID1 and use two of the 500Gb drives for thhe new boot
> drive with LVM (With /boot / /home and so on on it).
Before you do this, you may want to some serious i
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:34:57PM +0100, Kelly Harding
(kelly.hard...@gmail.com) wrote:
> My server has got debian on it currently in the following configuration:
>
> 250Gb boot drive with partitions for / /boot /home
> 3x500Gb drives in RAID5 array, with XFS on top directly.
> Aiming to get a
Hi,
My server has got debian on it currently in the following configuration:
250Gb boot drive with partitions for / /boot /home
3x500Gb drives in RAID5 array, with XFS on top directly.
Aiming to get a couple of 1Tb drives to migrate the 3x500Gb RAID5
array to a RAID1 and use two of the 500Gb dri
33 matches
Mail list logo
