On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> This is where I run up against a pre-conceived notion, which may or may not
> be correct. I had been thinking in terms of putting the stored data under
> /srv on the larger drive(s), and if I were going to use RAID, probably
> mirror those drives so if o
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Curt Mills wrote:
>
> Perhaps skip using the 13GB drive since it will probably fail
> relatively soon. Snag another larger drive and do mirroring between
> the two.
>
This is where I run up against a pre-conceived notion, which may or may not
be correct. I had b
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> I know everyone says RAID is not substitute for a proper backup
> solution... but this machine *is* the backup for the rest of the
> network. At what point should one draw the line for backing up? What
> is there out there that is still reasonably econo
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Monte Milanuk wrote:
[...]
>
> What I have currently is an older PC that I'm hoping to use as a home server
> / occasional 'workstation'. One 13GB main drive, and a 500GB drive for
> network storage. The default install in CentOS 5.4 seems to want to just
> lump e
Quoting Monte Milanuk :
> M. Hamzah Khan wrote:
>> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:44 -0800, Monte Milanuk wrote:
>>
>> What I think most people do (and what I am doing now), is to setup
>> RAID-1 or so behind the volume group. This way you will still be safe if
>> one of the drives fail. Keep in mind th
Monte Milanuk wrote on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:13:17 -0800:
> In practical terms, it may all be a moot point. I'm not too sure how
> much more I can jam in that mini-tower case without other problems, and
> (hopefully) 500GB should be enough storage for now; intended usage is
> just backing up use
M. Hamzah Khan wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:44 -0800, Monte Milanuk wrote:
>
> What I think most people do (and what I am doing now), is to setup
> RAID-1 or so behind the volume group. This way you will still be safe if
> one of the drives fail. Keep in mind that RAID is not a backup solution
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> M. Hamzah Khan wrote:
> > With both drives in one big volume group, failure of one drive will
> > (most likely) cause both the OS and data to be lost.
> >
> There in lies some of my confusion with this subject; correct me if I'm
> wrong in my
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 10:44 -0800, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> M. Hamzah Khan wrote:
> > There won't be any issue in doing this. The installer just tries to make
> > things easier by creating one big volume group.
> >
> > I'd say that in some ways seperating the two disks in this case would
> > actually
M. Hamzah Khan wrote:
> There won't be any issue in doing this. The installer just tries to make
> things easier by creating one big volume group.
>
> I'd say that in some ways seperating the two disks in this case would
> actually be better. :)
>
My last 'serious' experience with Linux was some
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 22:22 -0800, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been 'away' from all things Linux in general and RH in particular
> for a long while, so I've got some catching up to do ;)
>
> I've got a pretty fair collection of tabs reading on LVM and how it
> works and why its suc
Hello all,
I've been 'away' from all things Linux in general and RH in particular
for a long while, so I've got some catching up to do ;)
I've got a pretty fair collection of tabs reading on LVM and how it
works and why its such a great thing for enterprise use, etc., being
able to add storag
12 matches
Mail list logo
