LVM
in [Debian]
|
From: Ron Johnson on 15 Jun 2010 15:00 On 06/15/2010 01:37 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: [snip] > an USB enclosure and use it for backups. Having ~700GB of data with the > most critical ~400GB backed up is definitely preferable than no Geez, I remember when I couldn't fill up a 40_MB_ drive, and before that when I was in awe of the KayPro 10. -- Seek truth from facts. -- 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/4C17CB88.2070908(a)cox.net
From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. on 15 Jun 2010 15:10 On Tuesday 15 June 2010 12:30:50 martin f krafft wrote: > qlso sprach Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss(a)iguanasuicide.net> [2010.06.15.1840 +0200]: > > > 0 is not a RAID level. > > > > It is a RAID level, now. > > I fail to see how it > has suddenly become a RAID level. ;) Popular vote. :P ;) > > On the other hand, LVM striping is per-LV. Doing something like > > that with mdadm is... complex. > > Use mdadm for a RAID1 and LVM on top by default. > > Use mdadm for a RAID5 or RAID6 and LVM on top for the remaining > cases when you need space and care less about performance. Use RAID 1/0 in mdadm when you need redundancy, space, and performance. (Although, IME, RAID 5 is not badly performing.) This is particularly useful when you have 3 disks, but only need one disk redundancy. mdadm can layout data like this: | disk1 | disk2 | disk3 | +-------+-------+-------+ | dataA | dataA | dataB | | dataB | dataC | dataC | LVM cannot, easily. RAID 1/0 through mdadm with 4 disks is also better than strictly layering the RAID levels. RAID 0 disks, RAID 1 arrays: | array1 | array2 | | disk1 | disk2 | disk3 | disk4 | +-------+-------+-------+-------+ | dataA | dataB | dataA | dataB | | dataC | dataD | dataA | dataB | | dataE | dataF | dataA | dataB | RAID 1 disks, RAID 0 arrays: | array1 | array2 | | disk1 | disk2 | disk3 | disk4 | +-------+-------+-------+-------+ | dataA | dataA | dataB | dataB | | dataC | dataC | dataD | dataD | | dataE | dataE | dataF | dataF | mdadm 0/1 4 disk, 1 redundant copy of data: | disk1 | disk2 | disk3 | disk4 | +-------+-------+-------+-------+ | dataA | dataA | dataB | dataB | | dataC | dataD | dataC | dataD | | dataE | dataF | dataF | dataE | (same redundancy level as RAID 5, no parity calculations needed.) mdadm 0/1 4 disk, 2 redundant copy of data: | disk1 | disk2 | disk3 | disk4 | +-------+-------+-------+-------+ | dataA | dataA | dataA | dataB | | dataB | dataB | dataC | dataC | | dataC | dataD | dataD | dataD | (same redundancy level as RAID 6, although some capacity may be lost near the end, no parity calculations needed.) > Use LVM without RAID if you need space (and/or performance) and have > the data mirrored elsewhere. I fail to see the advantage of RAID0 in > this scenario, as LVM is more flexible. As long as you don't want to combine redundancy and striping, I agree. When you want to combine them, mdadm's RAID 1/0 is better. Using mdadm to do just RAID 0 is only useful if you have some reason not to want to LVM striping. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss(a)iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
From: Andrew Sackville-West on 15 Jun 2010 15:20 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:50:48PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/15/2010 01:37 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > [snip] > >an USB enclosure and use it for backups. Having ~700GB of data with the > >most critical ~400GB backed up is definitely preferable than no > > Geez, I remember when I couldn't fill up a 40_MB_ drive, and before > that when I was in awe of the KayPro 10. It wasn't too long ago (4-5 years?) that I built my current server with ~600GB array and I figured I'd *never* fill that up! Hah! I'm eyeing some 1TB drives to reconfigure the thing (to get rid of RAID-5 and grow a little). It's not full, but a little more elbow room would be nice. Sheesh A
From: Ron Johnson on 15 Jun 2010 16:00 On 06/15/2010 02:17 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:50:48PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 06/15/2010 01:37 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >> [snip] >>> an USB enclosure and use it for backups. Having ~700GB of data with the >>> most critical ~400GB backed up is definitely preferable than no >> >> Geez, I remember when I couldn't fill up a 40_MB_ drive, and before >> that when I was in awe of the KayPro 10. > > It wasn't too long ago (4-5 years?) that I built my current server > with ~600GB array and I figured I'd *never* fill that up! Hah! I'm > eyeing some 1TB drives to reconfigure the thing (to get rid of RAID-5 > and grow a little). It's not full, but a little more elbow room would > be nice. Sheesh > 1TB is soooo 3 years ago! NewEgg is selling 2TB Hitachis for $120 with promo code... -- Seek truth from facts. -- 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/4C17DB8D.7040801(a)cox.net
From: Andrew Sackville-West on 15 Jun 2010 16:30 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:59:09PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/15/2010 02:17 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:50:48PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >>On 06/15/2010 01:37 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >>[snip] > >>>an USB enclosure and use it for backups. Having ~700GB of data with the > >>>most critical ~400GB backed up is definitely preferable than no > >> > >>Geez, I remember when I couldn't fill up a 40_MB_ drive, and before > >>that when I was in awe of the KayPro 10. > > > >It wasn't too long ago (4-5 years?) that I built my current server > >with ~600GB array and I figured I'd *never* fill that up! Hah! I'm > >eyeing some 1TB drives to reconfigure the thing (to get rid of RAID-5 > >and grow a little). It's not full, but a little more elbow room would > >be nice. Sheesh > > > > 1TB is soooo 3 years ago! gah! > > NewEgg is selling 2TB Hitachis for $120 with promo code... I know it... how can you not b uy at that price, right? A > > -- > Seek truth from facts. > > > -- > 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/4C17DB8D.7040801(a)cox.net > > --
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Re (4): telnetd in Squeeze Next: Re (4): telnetd in Squeeze; |