On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael wrote:
>
> > hmmm. the remirroring code is not very smart... as I recall it
> > does the remirroring in order .. i.e. md0, md1, etc... This would
> > imply that if you have a power fail or other crash that causes bo
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael wrote:
> hmmm. the remirroring code is not very smart... as I recall it
> does the remirroring in order .. i.e. md0, md1, etc... This would
> imply that if you have a power fail or other crash that causes both
> md's to be faulty, the system will not be able to
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael wrote:
> > /dev/md0/dev/hda1 + /dev/hdc129.7 GBRAID-1
> > /dev/md1/dev/hda2 + /dev/hdc2 0.3 GBRAID-1
> >
> > We use /dev/md0 for the root fs and /dev/md1 for swap. Why?
> > Because it takes about 90 minutes to remirror /dev/md0 and only
> >
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael wrote:
> > /dev/md0/dev/hda1 + /dev/hdc129.7 GBRAID-1
> > /dev/md1/dev/hda2 + /dev/hdc2 0.3 GBRAID-1
> >
> > We use /dev/md0 for the root fs and /dev/md1 for swap. Why?
> > Because it takes about 90 minutes to remirror /dev/md0 and only
> >
> /dev/md0/dev/hda1 + /dev/hdc129.7 GBRAID-1
> /dev/md1/dev/hda2 + /dev/hdc2 0.3 GBRAID-1
>
> We use /dev/md0 for the root fs and /dev/md1 for swap. Why?
> Because it takes about 90 minutes to remirror /dev/md0 and only
> about 2 minutes to remirror /dev/md1. Since we c
I think there is rarely a valid reason to split a single disk system into
multiple small partitions. In fact, the Multi-Disk HOWTO agrees:
In fact, for single physical drives this scheme offers very little
gains at all, other than making file growth monitoring easier
(usi
Check out the "multi-disk-HOWTO" (the name might be slightly different) by
Stein Gjoen. You get get it from http://www.linuxdoc.org/. It has a very
good explanation of how and why things are the way they are. One of the
best HOWTOs around.
Greg
> -Original Message-
> From: Gl
