Am 17.03.2010 22:00, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:34 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
>
>> Just for clarification: Is it really necessary to unplug the broken disk
>> for this to work?
>> If read access fails on sda and the BIOS tries sdb, would this also
>> work? Isn't grub's h
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:34 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Just for clarification: Is it really necessary to unplug the broken disk
> for this to work?
> If read access fails on sda and the BIOS tries sdb, would this also
> work? Isn't grub's hd0 always the disk on which grub resides (e.g. the
>
Am 16.03.2010 22:26, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:13:29 +, Stroller wrote:
>
How does your system boot if your RAID1 system volume fails?
>>>
>>> You put GRUB on both disks, then you can boot from either on its
>>> own.
>>
>> Is this reliable? I don't contest it, I'
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 09:37 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> There was talk of opensolaris going by the wayside with the Oracle
> takeover of Sun... but Oracle has since announced its intention of
> puttin even more resources into `opensolaris' development than Sun was
> doing.
that will kill it for
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:13:29 +, Stroller wrote:
> >> How does your system boot if your RAID1 system volume fails?
> >
> > You put GRUB on both disks, then you can boot from either on its
> > own.
>
> Is this reliable? I don't contest it, I'm just asking. It's just this
> was one of my c
On 16/03/2010 19:57, Stroller wrote:
> How does your system boot if your RAID1 system volume fails? The one
> you have grub on? I think you mentioned a flash drive, which I've seen
> mentioned before. This seems sound, but just to point out that's
> another, different, single point of failure.
Well
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 21:13:29 Stroller wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2010, at 20:04, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:57:49 +, Stroller wrote:
> >> How does your system boot if your RAID1 system volume fails?
> >
> > You put GRUB on both disks, then you can boot from either on its own.
On 16 Mar 2010, at 20:04, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:57:49 +, Stroller wrote:
How does your system boot if your RAID1 system volume fails?
You put GRUB on both disks, then you can boot from either on its own.
Is this reliable? I don't contest it, I'm just asking. It's
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:57:49 +, Stroller wrote:
> How does your system boot if your RAID1 system volume fails?
You put GRUB on both disks, then you can boot from either on its own.
--
Neil Bothwick
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional!!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
On 16 Mar 2010, at 16:32, Steve wrote:
...
Given the point above I would also stick with software RAID.
...
If reliability is your primary concern, I would go for a simple RAID1
setup;
Absolutely. Software raid is cheaper and implies less hardware to
fail. Similarly, RAID1 minimises the to
On 15/03/2010 22:29, Andrea Conti wrote:
> This IMHO pretty much rules out any kind of server-class hardware, which
> tends to be both costly and power-hungry. If you're thinking about
> buying used stuff, be sure to factor in the cost and difficulty of
> finding spares in some years' time.
>
I'
Hi,
> The budget is miniscule - and the performance demands
> (bandwidth and latency) are completely non-challenging.
This IMHO pretty much rules out any kind of server-class hardware, which
tends to be both costly and power-hungry. If you're thinking about
buying used stuff, be sure to factor in
On 15/03/2010 18:21, Stroller wrote:
> It's hard to be more specific without knowing your usage.
Yes... I was deliberately vague to see what options came up... but I can
be more specific. The budget is miniscule - and the performance demands
(bandwidth and latency) are completely non-challenging.
On 15 Mar 2010, at 16:26, Steve wrote:
...
From ages ago, I remember iSCSI being bandied about. Did that ever go
anywhere (i.e. is this easy to do from Gentoo?)
I believe it is quite widely used - it is mentioned often on the linux-
poweredge list. I would imagine the Linux kernel allows mou
On 15/03/2010 15:49, Kyle Bader wrote:
> +1 on zfs w/ solaris for storage, just don't go cheap and get desktop disks.
>
I have to admit, I do like the idea of ZFS, though not quite enough to
justify maintaining Solaris in addition to my other infrastructure.
I was thinking about something rathe
+1 on zfs w/ solaris for storage, just don't go cheap and get desktop disks.
--
Kyle
Steve writes:
> I have recently started looking at server resilience and availability in
> the context of a hardware failure or hardware upgrade. I've come to the
> conclusion that it would be very desirable if terrabyte-scale data did
> not need to be restored from backup. This isn't a commerc
17 matches
Mail list logo
