On Thursday 13 November 2008, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: What is the point of RAID?':
The other thing to consider as that you don't necessarily need the same
performance/protection for the whole dataset on a system.
Yeah, I can understand that. I use software raid-1
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2008, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: What is the point of RAID?':
The other thing to consider as that you don't necessarily need the same
performance/protection for the whole dataset on a system
On Friday 14 November 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: What is the point of RAID?':
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2008, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
about 'Re: What is the point of RAID?':
The other
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 06:39:09PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re:
What is the point of RAID?':
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:59:09 -0600
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RAID-5 might not be the fastest
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:54:11 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that three drives is 50% more likely to fail than two. More than
fifty percent, if I remember my statistics at all correctly.
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
you have more drives,
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0500
Henning Follmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff,
you math is off - way off.
Well, the problem is that the more drives you have, the more can fail.
So what is the optimal number of disks in a raid 5 and a raid 1?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re:
What is the point of RAID?':
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0500
Henning Follmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff,
you math is off - way off.
Well, the problem is that the more drives you have, the more can fail.
So what
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: What is the point of RAID?
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:44:46 -0600
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:54:11 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that three drives is 50% more likely to fail than two
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:44 AM, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
you have more drives, or do you mean that it is more likely for a drive
in the array to fail when you have more drives? If drives fail more
often when being
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 09:44:47AM -0500, Henning Follmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:53:46AM -0500, Jeff Soules wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:44 AM, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
In practice, RAID 5 is risky because about half the time that a drive
fails a second drive fails before the rebuild is complete. The simple
mathematical models don't reflect problems which tend to affect more
than one drive including problems with operating system, controller,
motherboard,
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:59:09 -0600
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the optimal number of disks in a raid 5 and a raid 1?
If by optimal, you mean, least chance of failure:
Not exactly; I was wondering if there is a breaking point, as in
adding more drives only
Owen Townend wrote:
lee:
You are saying that the age of the drives doesn't matter at all? Then if
you lose one drive out of 24 every month, that would mean that about 4%
of all drives sold are junk. The new ones you get could fail within the
first few minutes ... or not work at all. Or does
Henning Follmann wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:53:46AM -0500, Jeff Soules wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:44 AM, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
you have more drives, or do you mean that it is more likely for a drive
in
lee wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:59:09 -0600
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the optimal number of disks in a raid 5 and a raid 1?
If by optimal, you mean, least chance of failure:
Not exactly; I was wondering if there is a breaking point, as in
adding more
2008/11/12 lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:54:11 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
If you
have a RAID 50 running on 20 SAS drives and 4 hot spares, you better
buy quite a few for cold spares, you are going to lose a drive every
two months. At least.
You are
lee wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:54:11 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that three drives is 50% more likely to fail than two. More than
fifty percent, if I remember my statistics at all correctly.
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
you have
Jeff Soules wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:44 AM, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
you have more drives, or do you mean that it is more likely for a drive
in the array to fail when you have more drives? If drives fail more
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 08:32:14AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Does anybody sleep around here?
Try and keep faithful.
--
Chris.
==
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:53:46AM -0500, Jeff Soules wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:44 AM, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when
you have more drives, or do you mean that it is more likely for a drive
in the array to fail
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:32:14 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody sleep around here?
Yes, I'm asleep ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:49:51 +1100
Owen Townend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There have been a few studies re disk drive reliability. This post
links and describes some of them:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg14771.html
(N.B. the thread is over a year old)
Interesting stuff to
Jeff,
you math is off - way off.
P(one fails) != 5/100
P(two drives fail at the same time) = P(one fails) * P(one fails)
= 25/1
Henning -- I'm not talking about the chance that the array will fail
-- just that the more drives are under observation, the more the
chance that *one* of
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re:
What is the point of RAID?':
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:59:09 -0600
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the optimal number of disks in a raid 5 and a raid 1?
If by optimal, you mean, least chance
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: What is the point of RAID?':
Age matters. Drive either fail in the first 60 days, or last for the
full length of the design life. Except when they don't.
As mentioned else where in the thread. This is an urban
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: What is
the point of RAID?':
The conventional wisdom for hardware is called infant mortality.
Most hardware failures occur during the first hundred or so hours of
operation. This is why good vendors typically burn the devices
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
RAID is old school/old guard, but it works very well. I'm not a big
believer in ZFS, because I believe a separation between the filesystem and
block-device management makes the whole system for flexible and useful.
This is a good point. I guess, like
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2008, Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: What is the point of RAID?':
Age matters. Drive either fail in the first 60 days, or last for the
full length of the design life. Except when they don't.
As mentioned else where
Mark Allums wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
RAID is old school/old guard, but it works very well. I'm not a
big believer in ZFS, because I believe a separation between the
filesystem and block-device management makes the whole system for
flexible and useful.
This is a good point. I
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 03:45:38AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
lee wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:29:55 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:51PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
If you do only have three drives, add it to the raid1
On 11/10/08 05:38, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations
from the
1990s?
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/10/08 05:38, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
snip
Maybe I overestimated your intelligence.
Tsk,tsk,
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations from
the
1990s? The state of the art is still
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/10/08 05:38, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
snip
Who said what? I didn't say
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/10/08 05:38, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:39:43PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
However, do not buy Asus for production work. For workstations,
servers, and non-consumer-grade
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:23:10 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Ron,
An important reason, though, why many mainframe shops upgrade is
that the cost of maintenance contracts skyrocket after 4ish years,
Surely, in part at least, that's rocketing price is to coerce the
customer
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations from the
1990s? The state of the art is still moving pretty fast. Even for
mainframes, the shelf-life of what is generally considered useful for a
lot of applications
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:58:24AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
An important reason, though, why many mainframe shops upgrade is that
the cost of maintenance contracts skyrocket after 4ish years, so that
it's cheaper to buy a
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:39:43PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
However, do not buy Asus for production work. For workstations,
servers, and non-consumer-grade desktops, Asus
is subpar,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 09:57:58PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 18:59, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:39PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
What about if you don't stick with i386/amd64? I know, there are fewer
and fewer (e.g. VAX, Alpha,
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-11-07 18:43:45, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
What brand board would you use for a reliable box?
Tyan
Why? And what is the difference with Asus?
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations from the
1990s? The state of the art is still moving pretty fast. Even for
mainframes, the shelf-life of what is generally considered useful for a
lot of applications is less than 6
On 11/09/08 07:50, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 09:57:58PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 18:59, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:39PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
What about if you don't stick with i386/amd64? I know,
replying to my own post:
lest this be incendiary, note the weasel words:
if it were up to me
Also, I'm not just prepared to be wrong about render servers, I'm
prepared to be wrong about everything. :)
Mark Allums
Mark Allums wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations from the
1990s? The state of the art is still moving pretty fast. Even for
mainframes, the shelf-life of what is generally
On 11/09/08 06:41, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:23:10 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Ron,
An important reason, though, why many mainframe shops upgrade is
that the cost of maintenance contracts skyrocket after 4ish years,
Surely, in part at least, that's
Does anybody sleep around here?
Mark Allums
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:41, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:23:10 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Ron,
An important reason, though, why many mainframe shops upgrade is that
the cost of maintenance contracts
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:23:09 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Ron,
Nowadays, probably. Back in the day (10-15-20 years ago), vendors
kept large stocks of old parts, and FEs could actually repair this
stuff.
Don't get me started; FEs seem to be little more than board
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:32:14 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Mark,
Does anybody sleep around here?
Yes, just not at the same time as you, though. :-)
--
Regards _
/ ) The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent
I'm
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:50:28 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Parts break,
redundancy kicks in, change the dead part, still the same computer.
If so, you can do that with three cheap i386 boxes.
Let's say you have a router/firewall/proxy, a fileserver, a mailserver
and a
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:18:53 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I'm not just prepared to be wrong about render servers, I'm
prepared to be wrong about everything. :)
Well, the numbers are arbitrary. If you assume that production takes
place in some kind of company, the
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations from the
1990s? The state of the art is still moving pretty fast. Even for
mainframes, the shelf-life of
On Sunday 09 November 2008 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
In a similar vein: contrary to Unix lore, most C apps are horribly
non-portable, whereas COBOL apps are *very* portable.
Contrary to popular lore, COBOL apps are typically no more portable than
C apps.
Yeah, I've had
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:25:29AM -0600, lee wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:50:28 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Parts break,
redundancy kicks in, change the dead part, still the same computer.
If so, you can do that with three cheap i386 boxes.
Let's say you have a
Am 2008-11-09 06:04:13, schrieb Hugo Vanwoerkom:
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-11-07 18:43:45, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
What brand board would you use for a reliable box?
Tyan
Why? And what is the difference with Asus?
...becaue Tyan is manufacturing professionel ones
...and no cheap
On 11/09/08 10:25, lee wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:50:28 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Parts break,
redundancy kicks in, change the dead part, still the same computer.
If so, you can do that with three cheap i386 boxes.
Let's say you have a router/firewall/proxy, a
On 11/09/08 17:53, Napoleon wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/09/08 06:58, Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/08/08 23:25, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
But, would you want a render farm made up of SGI workstations from the
1990s? The state of the art is still moving pretty fast. Even
On Fri,07.Nov.08, 16:48:49, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/07/08 16:15, Ken Heard wrote:
[snip]
The only way I can think of to avoid such a situation in this particular
box where there are only two drives in the RAID array, it to have a
third drive with everything but the /home partition stored in
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:46:58 -0500
Ken Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I should invest in a third HD, and before I go any further
switch from RAID 1 to 5.
Afair raid 5 would eat up the disk you buy, i. e. you get so much
disk space as (number_of_disks - 1) * diskspace, provided that the
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:29:55 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:51PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
If you do only have three drives, add it to the raid1 array.
Hm, if you do that, is there any other use for the third disk than as a
spare?
--
To
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:21:23 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you read the whole post?
Yes, I did; why do you ask?
What do you mean, when you say lose/lost connection to the disk? I
don't recall having anything like that ever happen. Sounds a bit
like a cabling problem.
lee wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:21:23 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you read the whole post?
Yes, I did; why do you ask?
I do not wish to appear as if I worship them. They are so huge, they
are bound to have a few duds. (They make a lot of boards for OEMs, like
HP
I have an Asus M2NPV-VM board for over a year now with no particular
issues, it's my best desktop so far. A fresh install will require to
fiddle with sound configurations so i won't get a constant annoying
beep, but that's software. The fan is the most silent (if cou compare
to the older PIIs i
lee wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:29:55 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:51PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
If you do only have three drives, add it to the raid1 array.
Hm, if you do that, is there any other use for the third disk than as a
spare?
On 11/08/08 03:45, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
RAID 5 allows losing a single drive to be no big deal. Also, when done
right, with the right number of drives and a good RAID card, is has
performance like RAID 0, or even better.
For reading, yes.
But for writing, it will always be slower. An
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 03:45:38AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
lee wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:29:55 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:51PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
If you do only have three drives, add it to the raid1 array.
Hm, if you do
On Sat November 8 2008 00:43:10 lee wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:29:55 -0500
Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:51PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
If you do only have three drives, add it to the raid1 array.
Hm, if you do that, is there any other use for
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 12:31:27PM +, Nuno Magalh??es wrote:
I have an Asus M2NPV-VM board for over a year now with no particular
issues, it's my best desktop so far. A fresh install will require to
fiddle with sound configurations so i won't get a constant annoying
beep, but that's
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
A properly designed board should not die of anything intrinsic, except
perhaps from leaking electrolytic capacitors after about 15 years or so.
Of course, in that time it may have been exposed to static discharge or
power surges but that's the fault of either the person
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:09:42 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not wish to appear as if I worship them. They are so huge,
they are bound to have a few duds. (They make a lot of boards for
OEMs, like HP and Dell and many others. As does Intel.) Asus is
like Any other large
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:39PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
The current crop of boards is a marketing-driven thing. You don't get
the best board, anymore, you get what the industry has decided to give you.
Like the color coordination of clothing, or the artificial
Am 2008-11-07 18:43:45, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty:
What brand board would you use for a reliable box?
Tyan
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User
On 11/08/08 18:59, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:39PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
The current crop of boards is a marketing-driven thing. You don't get
the best board, anymore, you get what the industry has decided to give you.
Like the color
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:38:39PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
The current crop of boards is a marketing-driven thing. You don't get
the best board, anymore, you get what the industry has decided to give you.
Like the color coordination of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In a new box I decided to install Etch with a RAID array. In that box I
had two 1 TB hard drives to use for a RAID 1 array. I discovered that
there is much to installing a RAID array which is not explained in the
Installation Guide.
The installer
On Fri November 7 2008 14:15:08 Ken Heard wrote:
The installer does not allow / (root), /boot or swap to be part of a
RAID array. I consequently had to put them in only one of these hard
drives as ordinary partitions, along with /tmp.
Except for laptops with only one HD, all of my Etch (and
On 11/07/08 16:15, Ken Heard wrote:
[snip]
The only way I can think of to avoid such a situation in this particular
box where there are only two drives in the RAID array, it to have a
third drive with everything but the /home partition stored in it, and
Or any common data partitions, as in a
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:15:08 -0500
Ken Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The installer does not allow / (root), /boot or swap to be part of a
RAID array.
It should allow that --- I haven't tried it with software raid, but you
can boot from the raid array when you have a hardware raid controller.
lee wrote:
advantage is that the system keeps running --- I've had a crappy Ausus
board (don't buy Asus!) that would loose connection to one of the SATA
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
However, do not buy Asus for production work. For
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:39:43PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
However, do not buy Asus for production work. For workstations,
servers, and non-consumer-grade desktops, Asus
is subpar, as are many other
On Fri November 7 2008 14:59:19 Ken Heard wrote:
Mike Bird wrote:
What makes you believe that the Etch installer doesn't allow RAID
for those partitions?
I can't quote Ken's reply as it was off-list. However some hints
would appear to be in order:
1) Create matching sets of software-RAID
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
systems have RAID / and RAID /boot. Some have RAID swap, although
there are performance tradeoffs to be considered for RAID swap.
Well, I hope you ARE aware that the box will lock up hard or panic if
anything happens to the device hosting the swap AND it
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:39:43PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
However, do not buy Asus for production work. For workstations,
servers, and non-consumer-grade desktops, Asus
is subpar,
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:39:43 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
Asus sucks. Support is nonexistent; losing connection to a disk
all the time is unacceptable, especially for a board that expensive.
The fan
lee wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:39:43 -0600
Mark Allums [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asus is fantastic! for a consumer-level board, especially their
enthusiast line.
Asus sucks. Support is nonexistent; losing connection to a disk
all the time is unacceptable, especially for a board that
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
systems have RAID / and RAID /boot. Some have RAID swap, although
there are performance tradeoffs to be considered for RAID swap.
On Fri Nov 7 18:50 , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh sent:
Well, I hope you ARE aware that the box will lock up hard or panic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Bird wrote:
What makes you believe that the Etch installer doesn't allow RAID
for those partitions?
I started out by creating partitions and then selecting them for RAID.
When I selected the finish option whereby they are written to disk,
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Bird wrote:
On Fri November 7 2008 14:59:19 Ken Heard wrote:
I can't quote Ken's reply as it was off-list. However some hints
would appear to be in order:
Sorry about that; I had intended to send it to the list and have now
done so. Better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008, Mike Bird wrote:
systems have RAID / and RAID /boot. Some have RAID swap, although
there are performance tradeoffs to be considered for RAID swap.
Well, I hope you ARE aware that the box
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
lee wrote:
Now when you have three disks, you can run a raid 5. In case one of the
disks fail, all you need to do is to replace the broken one.
Perhaps I should invest in a third HD, and before I go any further
switch from RAID 1 to 5.
And
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
snip
The installer does not allow / (root), /boot or swap to be part of a
RAID array. I consequently had to put them in only one of these hard
drives as ordinary partitions, along with /tmp.
I also found etch not to allow this. Lenny however has
Ken Heard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
lee wrote:
Now when you have three disks, you can run a raid 5. In case one of the
disks fail, all you need to do is to replace the broken one.
Perhaps I should invest in a third HD, and before I go any further
switch from RAID
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 02:06:27PM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
The installer does not allow / (root), /boot or swap to be part of a
RAID array. I consequently had to put them in only one of these hard
drives as ordinary partitions, along with /tmp.
I also found etch not to allow this.
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:51PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
Ken Heard wrote:
I don't like the sound of *that*. RAID 5 done in software can be
dreadfully slow. Buy two drives and do a RAID 10, or stick with RAID 1.
If you do only have three drives, add it to the raid1 array.
--
To
95 matches
Mail list logo
