Les Mikesell wrote: > Ruslan Sivak wrote: > >> Yea, I think for these reasons I will use lvm. I have set up a >> system as follows: >> >> /boot raid 1 200mb 4 drives no spares (I guess this makes 4 copies of >> the data?) > > What't the point of putting this on more than 2 drives? > Well for one thing, if 2 drives fail and it doens't get a chance to rebuild, then I still have 2 good drives. Another thing is if a drive fails and the spare is in the wrong location, and the spare becomes the boot drive, it won't be able to boot, but if all 4 drives are copies of each other, then everything is well and good. >> / 10gb on lvm >> /data 50gb on lvm >> /backup 250gb on lvm >> >> rest of space left free to allow for resizing and adding of >> partitions with lvm >> >> I will pull out a drive tommorow and see how resilient this is. Does >> this sound like a good solution? > > It is versatile, if you don't know where the additional space will be > needed but don't think mounting it as separate partitions in > subdirectories will be handy. I forgot to mention the other reason I > like straight RAID1 installs - you can easily clone a machine with all > of its current software by pulling a drive, booting it in a new > machine and rebuilding the raids on both. > I don't see why I can't pull out 2 drives out of this install (like 1 and 3), put them into another machine and let it rebuild itself. Russ