> The RAID hardware is far below samba (or even the operating
> system), by design. The way that a RAID 5 works is that if you lose 1
drive, nothing notices
> (except the RAID monitor software, which will hopefully start calling
pagers to
> get the failed drive replaced). Samba won't even notice t
Jeanne Schock said on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:19:42PM -0400:
> comments. I need to be certain, that if one harddrive fails, that the other
> harddrive will continue as the pdc without any disturbance between XP client
> and samba server, ie. no loss of trust relationship. Simply put, my bosses
> wa
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:25 PM
To: Jeanne Schock; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] samba failover plan on unix OS using hardware RAID
Bri-
I appreciate the comments. To answer some questions -
This is an
> So, my suggestion is IDE hardware RAID 1,
Since you asked, I would go with Raid 5. Your load
being 20-30 clients is very light.
> is this a standard and good plan?
Depends on many factors as your prereqs are generic
being reliability and cost. I mean thats just about
every ones prereq.
You ne
