Francois Barre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
G'day Francois.
Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this
solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in
the months to come... Performance is absolutely not a big issue for
me, but I would not
- Original Message -
From: Marc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: JaniD++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: where is the spare drive? :-)
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:26:58 +0100, JaniD++ wrote
Hello, list,
I found something
Daniel Pittman wrote:
Francois Barre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
G'day Francois.
Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this
solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in
the months to come... Performance is absolutely not a big issue for
me,
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Francois Barre wrote:
Well, anyway, thanks for the advice. Guess I'll have to stay on ext3
if I don't want to have nightmares...
And you can always mount it as ext2 if you think the journal is corrupt.
Have you considered Raid-6 rather than R5?
The biggest worry I have is
2006/1/5, berk walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
Ext3 does have a fine record. Might I also suggest an added expense of
18 1/2% and do RAID6 for better protection against data loss?
b-
Well, I guess so. I just hope I'll be given enough money for it, since
it increases the cost per GB.
Tom De Clercq wrote:
Hi all,
First of all the best wishes for 2006.
I am searching for a solution for my raid since last Thursday. What
just happened I didn't know for sure, only thing I could see was that
my server rebooted multiple times and my raid-5 array went offline.
Os debian
Francois Barre wrote:
2006/1/5, berk walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
Ext3 does have a fine record. Might I also suggest an added expense of
18 1/2% and do RAID6 for better protection against data loss?
b-
Well, I guess so. I just hope I'll be given enough money for it, since
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:35:12PM +0100, Francois Barre wrote:
By the way, not really a raid-oriented question, but what is the exact
robustness of ext3 resizing ? I mean : what happens if the box crashes
while resizing an ext3 ?
Ext3 online resizing is undergoing some changes, so this
Francois Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking
Francois at this solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving
Francois in a 12*250 rai5 in the months to come... Performance is
Francois absolutely not a big issue for me, but I would not
Francois appreciate any data loss.
2006/1/5, John Stoffel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what are you doing for backups, and can you allow the downtime
needed to restore all your data if there is a problem? Remember, it's
not the cost of doing backups which drives things, it's the cost of
the time to *restore* the data which drives
Another feature of LVM is moving physical devices (PV). This makes it
easier to grow your enormous fs because it allows you to remove disks.
Thanks for the tip, didn't think of it this way...
[...]
I haven't ever done this, just read about it. Also, maybe when md
allows growing raid5/6 this
Francois == Francois Barre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francois 2006/1/5, John Stoffel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what are you doing for backups, and can you allow the downtime
needed to restore all your data if there is a problem? Remember, it's
not the cost of doing backups which drives things,
On Jan 5, 2006, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Perhaps you would be better served by starting with a fully functional
initramfs (or initrd) implementation that is in active use, then
extending (or adapting) it to do what you wanted?
Ubuntu Linux and Debian unstable have the 'initramfs-tools' package
Francois Barre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2006/1/5, Daniel Pittman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Francois Barre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
G'day Francois.
Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this
solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in
the
14 matches
Mail list logo
