Brandon Beattie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Tom Lichti wrote:
But you wouldn't need to shrink the filesystem to replace the disk with
RAID5, if you use enough disks (minimum 3). Of course there is a trade
off in terms of available data space, but if what you put on there is
important to you, it's worth it. At least for me it was. Performance is
increased as well, since you have more spindles to read and write from
simultaneously.
.. You need to re-read what I said. My point was not avoiding a failed
disk problem. My point even exists if you simply want to remove a disk,
for any reason -- You can't unless you're going to put a new disk in its
place, that is the problem/hidden pitfall to XFS, JFS, and Reiser4 with
LVM. I have no desire to get into the raid debate because it's
completely unrelated to the problem I brought up. If you're curious why
I chose not to do raid, e-mail me and I'll explain off-list.
Ok, makes sense. I've used both RAID and LVM (sometimes together) I am
just more comfortable with RAID, even though it does limit some things.
And yes, lets not turn this into a vi vs. emacs thread... :)
Tom
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
