On Friday 27 January 2006 5:44 pm, Oliver Lupton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:33:54 +0100
>
> Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hm, are you sure? Mirroring is RAID1. RAID10 means, that you have one
> > RAID0 array mirrored at another one. Since you need three disks for a
> > RAID5, I
David Gaudine wrote:
I have to set up a system that is totally reliable w.r.t. data
integrity. That is, if a disk (or anything else) fails, it's OK if the
system is down for a few hours, but when it comes back up it has to be
exactly as it was, i.e. I can't restore from the previous day's back
According to Joseph H. Fry,
> I am partial to software raid for one important reason longevity. One
> great thing about linux is that it rarely makes something entirely
> obsolete... and even if it does, you can always download previous versions of
> your favorite distro... an array create
On 1/27/06, David Gaudine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to set up a system that is totally reliable w.r.t. data
> integrity. That is, if a disk (or anything else) fails, it's OK if the
> system is down for a few hours, but when it comes back up it has to be
> exactly as it was, i.e. I can't
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:33:54 +0100
Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, are you sure? Mirroring is RAID1. RAID10 means, that you have one
> RAID0 array mirrored at another one. Since you need three disks for a
> RAID5, I thought RAID50 would mean a RAID5 array over at least three
> RAI
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:50:47PM -0500, Joseph H. Fry wrote:
versions of your favorite distro... an array created by mdadm today will
likely be readable by most linux distros for many years to come.
Yes, that's certainly true. And I think, you can boot from a software
RAID1 without much trou
I am partial to software raid for one important reason longevity. One
great thing about linux is that it rarely makes something entirely
obsolete... and even if it does, you can always download previous versions of
your favorite distro... an array created by mdadm today will likely be
read
David Gaudine wrote:
I have to set up a system that is totally reliable w.r.t. data
integrity. That is, if a disk (or anything else) fails, it's OK if the
system is down for a few hours, but when it comes back up it has to be
exactly as it was, i.e. I can't restore from the previous day's back
I have to set up a system that is totally reliable w.r.t. data
integrity. That is, if a disk (or anything else) fails, it's OK if the
system is down for a few hours, but when it comes back up it has to be
exactly as it was, i.e. I can't restore from the previous day's backup.
The obvious solu
9 matches
Mail list logo
