I think, he wants to have an extendable partition; just increasing it
when it is needed and therefore a LVM seems to be best.
Important filesystems should be regulary backed up to prevent data loss.
Greetings, Dietmar
p.s: I am speaking of the Logical Volume Manager for Linux that is
similar to
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
Hi,
Hm , I have not the possibilty to set up a hw-raid and mostly not the
time to do so in order for testing and comparisons, but I have a
suggestion towards hw- and sw-raids.
I am using sw-raids on systems like you described with just more
"m. allan noah" wrote:
ok dave, look at it this way.
1 in a million chance that one drive will fail.
1 in a million chance that you other drive will fail.
2 disk raid0 setup, either disk can destroy your filesystem.
2 in a million chance of md device failure.
I can reverse that and
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Steve Costaras wrote:
swap on a RAID 1 device has been solved, I was thinking about trying to put
my
entire core OS under RAID 1.
Has anyone here done this already, and can anyone share any insights as to
what I might run into?
I am running the 'old' raid with 0.42
I've been running additional benchmarks on my test server. The server
is a 500MHz Celeron with an ~20GB RAID5 using kernel 2.2.3. The
benchmarks now cover single drive performance using two different types
of IDE adapters, RAID5 performance using IDE in a master/slave
configuration, and RAID5
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Jim Ford wrote:
Hmm, I'll look into using LVM first. It seems logical that someone would
What's LVM (I'm new to this list)? I'm considering Linear or RAID-0; is LVM
an alternative and where can I get more info, please?
Regards: Jim Ford
AFAIK:
LVM is
