On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Tom Lichti wrote: > But you wouldn't need to shrink the filesystem to replace the disk with > RAID5, if you use enough disks (minimum 3). Of course there is a trade > off in terms of available data space, but if what you put on there is > important to you, it's worth it. At least for me it was. Performance is > increased as well, since you have more spindles to read and write from > simultaneously.
.. You need to re-read what I said. My point was not avoiding a failed disk problem. My point even exists if you simply want to remove a disk, for any reason -- You can't unless you're going to put a new disk in its place, that is the problem/hidden pitfall to XFS, JFS, and Reiser4 with LVM. I have no desire to get into the raid debate because it's completely unrelated to the problem I brought up. If you're curious why I chose not to do raid, e-mail me and I'll explain off-list. --Brandon
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
