2007/9/20, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2007/09/20 19:34 (GMT-0300) Juan Erbes apparently typed: > > > 2007/9/20, Felix Miata wrote: > > >> Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > >> > If you > >> > want that, then use LVM. > > >> That may be fine for most people, as that's apparently what the kernel > >> developers expect, as well as the only offering for Fedora users. It's not > >> so > >> good for people with a tried and true multiboot creation, maintenance, > >> backup > >> and restore strategy based upon cloning/copying partitions and a minimal > >> number of physical hard disks per system. > > > From the backup point of view, is more secure to use 2 HD, rather than > > only one. Because if You has only one HD, and it got mechanicals or > > controller (internal) problems, the backup of one partition in other > > of the same disk, goes useless. > > Additional safety of more disks unless using RAID is an illusion, and then > with RAID you're right back to the limit of 14. To get 28 and safety means > you need 4 disks: 2 for each set of 14 partitions, and matching devices for > the RAID1. Now with 4 disks you have 4 times the opportunity for hardware > failure, and 4 times the cost. > > > If You use 2 Hard Disks, then the problem of the 15 partitions is > > resolved, because You can obtain 30 partitions from the 2 HDs. > > 30 takes 3 devices, because 15 is only the name of the last device, not the > count, which is 14, because on sd[1-4] only 3 can have filesystems.
> > What makes you think 30 is enough? I have 42+, and don't want to buy 3 times > as many disks and the larger power supplies to feed them, and the extra > electricity/pollution to run them full time. My backups involve (small) part > time usage disks, typically shared among multiple systems. Sorry, but I do'nt speak anything about RAID1. It's Your illusion. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
