On Sat October 3 2009, adfas asd wrote: > --- On Fri, 10/2/09, Ben DJ <bendj095124367913213465@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:30 AM, adfas asd <chimera_god@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > >I've unplugged each drive and tried it, and they boot > > > > just fine degraded. > > > > That's great to hear. Just curious, how many drives > > in your array at the time? > > Two disks, 2TB each. RAID10-o2 means that there are two redundant copies > of my data in the array, stored respectively on sda and sdb. > > > > I followed this guide, to convert my -running- Debian > > > > system, and just made a few substitutions for RAID10: > > > http://www.howtoforge.com/software-raid1-grub-boot-debian-etch > > > > Thanks for the additional URL. > > > > In all these cases /boot on RAID-10 was on its own > > partition, NOT on > > /boot in a LVM-on-RAID, right? > > I didn't use LVM, and don't trust layering of any technology. My two-drive > array was set up much as he recommended it: md1 - / (including /boot), md2 > - swap, md3 - /home. I am against any further fracturing of partitions, > as modern disk drives have lots of space, and lots of parts becomes > unmaintainable. > > I will say that this system appears to be a performance problem for me, as > I run MythTV on / and have my videos in /home. When Myth is scanning to > eliminate commercials it must frantically sweep between / and /home, and > overall system performance is impacted. I am working on putting / on a > dedicated high-performance 2.5" drive and keeping my videos on the array > as they're much too large to back up. In the process I'm also going to > split the array so that one drive is in the PeeCee and the other is NASsed > out in the garage in case of theft or fire. > > When I need more space (soon) I'll add two more drives, and still mirror > them two copies, with one side of the mirror in the PeeCee (sda, sdb) and > the other NASsed in the garage (sdc, sdd). > > What I know is that 'offset' will boot and fail over. I don't know if > 'far' will. I also know that .90 will boot and fail over. I don't know > whether 1.x will. When building the array I tried to use 1.2 (as I > thought it was newest/best) but there was a bitch at the beginning of boot > and it wouldn't boot (for other reasons) so I reverted to .90. When I do > it again I will likely use 1.0, given what I've recently learned here. > > I am still confused about the benefits of far vs offset. Keld (the > developer) says that although offset is newer, it's not necessarily better > than far, only more compatible. I have not found any rigorous performance > comparisons of far vs offset. > > I am shocked to read that RAID10 is not expandable. I will want to add > disks in the future. I will want to add space, but not partitions. Does > this mean I'll have to completely rebuild the array? Once your data gets > to a certain size it becomes unmanageable to rebuild the array. > I'm assuming they just haven't had time to do it yet. the raid 10 module is fairly new, while the raid5/6 code has been around for ages. I'm hoping that by the time I need to expand my new raid10 array, there will be full expansion support like raid5 has. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Thomas Fjellstrom tfjellstrom@xxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
