On Sunday 24 Feb 2013 10:35:18 Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > The setup is using a hardware based RAID Controller (Intel) with two
> > 100 GB discs.
>
> Does it support a third? Plugging it in for as long as it takes to
> become a good copy would be another option.
The machine only has two externally accessible removable drive bays. I don't
really want to break open the hardware, since I have a pretty extensive
Warranty.
> That assumes Linux supports the controller BTW; if not, you've got to
> stick with XP or duck below Intel to the drives.
Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that. Generally Intel is pretty good with Linux
and RAID is more likely to be used in the Enterprise than anywhere else, so I
should be OK.
> > With respect to questions 3 and 4, I read in some forums that people
> > clone a single disc and then let the RAID rebuild itself when they
> > restore. That sounds a bit fraught to me, so it makes me nervous.
>
> Why's that? Are you concerned about putting your one good copy under
> the care of the controller whilst you hope it does the right thing?
That's about the size of it. However, see below.
> Good idea to back it up BTW; "RAID is not backup", as the mantra goes.
This 'backup' is to allow the original system, (with all our software
installed), to be restored in the event of a catastrophic failure of the
machine.
The RAID is to improve Availability, which is critical in this installation.
If a disc fails, the user's can fix it later, but the machine will continue to
work until they can take the machine off line.
Even then, the backup is the last port of call. Under normal circumstances,
if a disc fails, the the user's will replace it with the spare and allow the
system to rebuild.
--
Terry Coles
64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux
--
Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2013-03-05 20:00
Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/
New thread on mailing list: mailto:[email protected]
How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
