Feizhou wrote: > Ruslan Sivak wrote: >> Feizhou wrote: >>> >>>>>> What advantages, if any, would lvm have over this set up? >>>>> >>>>> How about flexible filesystem resizing? If you did it the way I >>>>> suggested: 512MB /boot, 512MB /tmp, you have like 960GB of space >>>>> to carve anyway you like. You also get lvm snapshots which you >>>>> won't get with raid seeing that this is supposed to be a backup >>>>> server too. >>>> >>>> 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?) >>> >>> You have four disks which will be paired into two pairs. If one pair >>> goes, everything goes. Might as well use one pair for /boot and the >>> other for /tmp. >>> >> I'm not quite sure I understand? This is raid1, not raid10. While >> I'm not sure exactly how raid1 works with 4 drives, I'm assuming >> everything is a copy of a copy of a copy... >> So how would 2 drives going out kill the whole raid1 device? > > NOT everything is raid1 now is it? Your data/system is on raid10 RIGHT? > _______________________________________________ > Well apparently not. I decided to go with 2 raid1's with LVM striped on top of it. The previous comment was specifically about /boot on raid1. I have tested it, and it worked flawlessly even with 2 drives taken out. All my arrays held up. Of course if I took out one of the wrong drives, I would've lost my data, but I think the book partition would've been ok. Russ