Kyle <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.
*nod* OK, that helps explain why. :)
>> 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.
Mmmm. Local backups? As in, add another disk and use it as the backup
target? That is reasonable.
>> 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?
No, that will work as you state: a crash will potentially take your
system down, recovery will be fine. If you have accepted that trade-off
then all is well.
A surprising number of people /don't/ consider that, and can't afford to
have the system go down, but still use RAID-0 swap. :)
Regards,
Daniel
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
