Carlos E. R. schrieb:
>
>
> The Tuesday 2007-12-04 at 22:05 -0600, Jim Flanagan wrote:
>
>> Herbert Graeber wrote:
>
>>>> My partitions are set up as follows:
>>>> primary
>>>> /dev/md0 /boot
>>>> extended
>>>> /dev/md1 /swap
>>>> /dev/md2 /
>>>> /dev/md3 /home
>>>> /dev/md4 /share
>
>>> 3. Have two swap partions one without raid for the resume and one
>>> with raid
>>> for swapping, large enough, that the first one is not really used for
>>> swapping (I haven tested this).
>
>> Most intersting. Option 3 does both un-mirrored and mirrored. I'm not
>> sure I want to test that one out, but sound plausible. I guess I'm good
>> with putting swap on an un-mirrored partition, as long as it doesn't
>> break the mirrors in the event of one disk failure, (see my post a few
>> minutes ago on this). Seems un-mirrored would be faster anyway, but I
>> want to keep the integrity of the mirrored partitions.
>
> For safety, the un-mirrored would have to be defined with lower
> priority, so that the mirrored swap gets filled in first.
>
> For the other part of your question, notice that you have five mirrors,
> and that if one disk fails you have to partition and intialize five
> mirrors.
>
> An alternative I haven't tested is to create one large raid, and
> partition the resulting raid. Then the rebuild procedure would be to
> re-create that single raid partition.
It is sufficient to partition one disk. It is then an easy job to copy
the partition table to other disks. Eg.: To copy the partition table
from /dev/sda to /dev/sdb you can use
sfdisk -d /dev/sda | sfdisk /dev/sdb
Cheers,
Herbert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
