On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:04:43PM +0200, Daniel Tryba wrote: > Which is a negligible advantage. How often is the need for this? Disk > space for / varies between 100Mb to 500Mb on my machines. Instal > with a generous 2Gb for / only and you "never" need to worry about it > filling up.
Certainly if you are already making / small, it probably is because you don't intend to ever have it be big. > / is to valuable to lose. IMHO a single disk setup is a no go. > > Just to add my 2cents: > > new machines get (multiple (identical) disks with) 2 partitions on them: > 1 - a small 2Gb (type fd) > 2 - the rest (type fd) > > The small partitions are combined in a md0 array raid1, the others in > whatever you like (most likely 5, 1 otherwise) md1 array. > > /dev/md0 will be used for /. > /dev/md1 will be a pv for lvm. > > This adds redundancy, plus any of the partition that make up the raid1 > for / can be mounted on its own (but writing to one will break the > array). Adding a disk creates an other copy of /, and with the newer > kernels a raid5 array can be expanded, so it can be used by the LVM. > > But this still creates a static sized /, which IMHO is no problem IF the > initial size is big enough. I like it. It matches how I setup all my machines. After having done the work to recover data from a machine where the drive started to fail, I can't justify not using raid1 on every machine anymore. Disks are just too cheap and my time has value to me. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
