On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Michael Torrie <[email protected]> wrote: > Anyway, what the device nodes are is completely up to the distro. When > I managed RH servers connected to a big san, we didn't use > /dev/sda-style notation at all. Instead we used /dev/disk/by-id/ nodes. > This way even if the disks moved to a new chassis, they'd still be > found. We did find, though, that the RAID chassis itself would create > these ids, and when you moved a RAID set to a new chassis, the disk ids > would change. But it was much better than using /dev/sda and the like, > which could change order at boot, depending on how fast the arrays > responded and were enumerated by udev.
I personally like using the UUID= or LABEL= methods for identifying disks to mount. But anyway your idea to use a different identifier other than /sev/sda-style is a good one for a machine where disks might move around. Dan, I would not recommend using that many drives in a single RAID array. The more disks you have in a single RAID6 array increases the chances you will encounter multiple disk failures and hence a whole array failure. Personally I wouldn't use more than 10 drives per RAID6, but this number can of course vary. If you want them all in a single array, you can group the individual RAID6 arrays into a single one by concatenating or striping the arrays. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
