On Feb 4, 2008 3:34 PM, Ross S. W. Walker <rwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LVM is very well supported these days.Rob Lines wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 3:16 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> with LVM, you could join several smaller logical
> drives, maybe 1TB each,
> into a single volume set, which could then contain
> various file systems.
>
>
> That looks like it may be the result. The main reason was to
> keep the amount of overhead and 'stuff' required to revive it
> in the event of a server issue to a minimum. That was one of
> the reasons for going with an enclosure that handles all the
> RAID internally and just presents to the server as a single
> drive. We had been trying to avoid LVM as we had run into
> problems using knoppix recovering it in the past.
>
> It looks like we will probably just end up breaking it up
> into smaller chunks unless I can find a way for the enclosure
> to use 512 sectors and still have greater than 2 tb volumes.
In fact I default on LVM for all my OS and external storage
configurations here as it provides for greater flexibility and
manageability then raw disks/partitions.
How easy is it to migrate to a new os install? Given the situation as I described with a single 6tb 'drive' using lvm and the server goes down and we have to rebuild the server from scratch or move the storage to another machine (all using CentOS 5) how easy is that?
We are still checking with the vendor for a solution to move back to the 512 sectors rather than the 2k ones. Hopefully they come up with something.
Thanks,
Rob
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
