RAIDFrame is disabled in GENERIC for a reason you know.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:08:48AM -0700, Tom Bombadil wrote:
> Yes... I agree with with you... not really my decision at the time,
> since I didn't work here... but I guess the thought was that RaidFrame
> would provide more uptime in case of multiple harddrive failures, and
> not really data protection.
>
> Thanks Daniel
>
> Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> > Tom Bombadil wrote:
> >> One funny story about redundancy in general: we run raidframe to mirror
> >> the 2 disks in the system... And like I said both firewalls were
> >> crashing together... After the crash our allegedly redundant firewalls
> >> were both down for 20 minutes for parity rebuilding... simplicity is a
> >> beautiful thing ;)
> >
> > May be that's just me, but a very simple question for you. If you have
> > redundant firewall and I guess you are running CARP on them right? Why
> > would you even have raidframe setup on a firewall.
> >
> > Isn't it the KISS gold principal would dictate otherwise here. Specially
> > for a firewall. A good firewall needs the minimum setup on it.
> >
> > Obviously I may be talking none sense here, but RaidFrame on a firewall
> > is the last place I would put it.
> >
> > What kind of data do you want to protect on a RaidFrame. The list of bad
> > ssh attackers for your PF configurations? Must be a HUGE list to needs
> > RaidFrame for it! (;>
> >
> > Just a thought, may be review your setup might be much better then
> > trying to get new hardware, but that's just me.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Daniel
