Prev: Console font turned cyan
Next: Ubuntu vs Debian forums (was recompiling the kernel with a different version name)
From: thib on 11 Apr 2010 15:50
I think the main question you should ask yourself is: "Do I want redundancy?"

* Yes? Now you know the drives should have equal size, reflecting your
needs. It's also a good idea to get identical drives.

You'll then probably create a big volume group over the entire RAID.


* No? Then you're free to get whatever you need in addition to your
existing drive (why throw it away? well, okay.)

You'll just have to create some new logical volumes on the new drive, and
assign them to your existing volume group, effectively expanding it. That's
where LVM really shines, by the way.


As others have said, there's no reason for the boot drive to be "as small as
possible".

Also, GRUB2 supports RAID and LVM [1], so you can even put the /boot
partition on a logical volume. Some people will probably say "that makes
recovery harder"; which is true only if you have inappropriate recovery
tools. I really see no problem with that, and it makes more sense to
integrate it with everything else, IMO -- not doing that looks like a hack.

I still agree with the others about your filesystems layout, but maybe you
want to just ask yourself the same question I asked myself some weeks ago:
"Up to where is it worth the trouble?" [2].

-thib

PS Do your backup and start incrementals every hour now :-)

[1] http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2010/02/msg01945.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BC22516.4050102(a)stammed.net
From: Stefan Monnier on 12 Apr 2010 16:30
> I'm thinking to replace this IDE drive with two SATA HDs. One as small as
> I can get. Say 100GB or so and make that the boot drive. And a second HD say
> 500GB or so and moving the LVM over to that.

That begs the question: why exactly do you want 2 drives, and why do you
want one of the two to be small.
Maybe your case makes sense, but in general buying a small drive is
a waste of money (you can get larger ones for about the same price and
they not only give you free extra space, they're also faster).


Stefan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jwv1veks9vl.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.user(a)gnu.org
From: Jon Dowland on 13 Apr 2010 06:30
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If you're going to buy two
> drives, you'd be stupid to not use mirroring for fault tolerance and a
> little added read performance here and there (depends on application).

I disagree. Mirroring only protects you against drive failures and not
human error. Using a second drive as a target for a tool which stores
incremental backups (such as rdiff-backup, or bup (package forthcoming))
can save you from human mistakes too. For common home setups, I would
recommend that over mirroring.


From: Ron Johnson on 13 Apr 2010 11:20
On 2010-04-13 05:23, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> If you're going to buy two
>> drives, you'd be stupid to not use mirroring for fault tolerance and a
>> little added read performance here and there (depends on application).
>
> I disagree. Mirroring only protects you against drive failures and not
> human error.

And I disagree with that. Mirroring *definitely* makes both reads
and writes go faster, due to parallelism.

--
Dissent is patriotic, remember?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BC489D1.60308(a)cox.net
From: thib on 13 Apr 2010 12:20
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2010-04-13 05:23, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> If you're going to buy two
>>> drives, you'd be stupid to not use mirroring for fault tolerance and a
>>> little added read performance here and there (depends on application).
>>
>> I disagree. Mirroring only protects you against drive failures and not
>> human error.
>
> And I disagree with that. Mirroring *definitely* makes both reads and
> writes go faster, due to parallelism.

Hmm. Don't ^ these.

Backups are always necessary, mirroring is optional but speeds up recovery
from hardware failure *only*. Sometimes, you can't backup (it doesn't make
sense, it's too big, ..) and thus, yes, you also *need* mirroring (not just
to speed up things). But it will not help you in case of human error, as
Stan said.

-thib


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BC4981B.6010005(a)stammed.net
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Console font turned cyan
Next: Ubuntu vs Debian forums (was recompiling the kernel with a different version name)