Sander Smeenk wrote: > Quoting Nigel Metheringham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > >> I have to say I am getting less convinced by RAID 1 on systems. >> > > RAID at all for me, actually. I've seen it crumble down to a grinding > halt several times (using software raid, mdadm, that is). While it was > designed so that a disk could fail without the service being > interrupted, in my experience a disk failing will still make the system > unusable. Either because the kernel goes haywire trying to adress the > non-working device or mdadm making decisions causing the entire set to > go offline. > > Especially mdadm setups where you combine RAID-0 and RAID-1 sets to > achieve RAID-10 tend to break when there's problems. > > Still, recovery is easier as the set can rebuild or data can be > retrieved from just one disk from a set... > > >
I have an unusual system myself but if I were setting up something ordinary what I would do is run 2 drives with no raid. Then every hour or so run rsync to copy all your important data between the drives. You rick losing an hour's worth of email in the case of hard drive failure but you gain speed and simplicity. Also - I recommend really big SATA II drives. Buy a 750G or 1T drive. On the lower numbered tracks these drives are a lot faster. Most people don't know this but the outer tracks are about 2,5 times as fast as the inner tracks. So an oversized drive will increase performance. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
