Daniel Pittman wrote:
Kyle <[email protected]> writes:
Maybe, but the last machine I had I ran LVM. I had a hard enough time
remembering which volume belonged to which group belonged to which
disk (and that despite naming them along the lines of;
'lv00Grp00Hda1', lv01Grp00Hda1').
My immediate response to that is "why would you bother?"
Being anal. Plus I was new to LVM at the time.
The only case I can think of where it would matter are wanting to have
specific partitions on specific disk sets, for performance,
exactly. That and local backups.
Well, at the moment you have RAID 1 under everything except for swap,
which you have on a RAID 0 array. (Implemented, in this case, through
the Linux kernel balancing swap space use when areas have equal
priority, as your two separate partitions do.)
Hmmm. If I think about it... My logic at the time would probably have been;
If one disk in the array fails, then all data is mirrored.
Yes, the machine might crash and if it had anything in SWAP at that time,
I would lose that information. Acceptable risk.
However, with a single mirrored disk, and still a complete SWAP partition,
I expected I would be able to restart and function on the one disk
temporarily
until such point in time as I was to rebuild the mirror.
Are you saying that wouldn't work?
It isn't, really: you could just turn those two swap partitions into a
software RAID array like the rest of your data, but RAID 1 rather than
RAID 0. :)
Ok. So how do I do that? But are you sure my logic above isn't sound?
TiA.
K
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
