-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: John Andersen [mailto:jsa@pen.homeip.net] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 30. Oktober 2001 11:04 An: suse-security@suse.com Betreff: Re: AW: [suse-security] raid on what
On Monday 29 October 2001 11:45 pm, Pawelczyk, Heiko wrote: -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Using Suse 7.3, I'm planning a raid (5) server instalation and was planing to use reiserfs partitions on three drives connected each to a different ide controller. Any problems with this?
No if all of them are master without a slave device on the same cable.
Yes, one disk per controller channel was what I was planning. this requires an additional controller card which hopefully will be supported by Suse. We shall see.
Is reiserfs a suitable partition for raid? any other suggestions?
Reiserfs is fine, but you have first to partition the disks, then you define the raid-array and don´t format it, if you plan to use LVM! At this point you leave it as ext2. With LVM you can partition the raid-array. Use yast2 for installation. Yast1 can´t configure raid.
I'm running Reiserfs on one of my machines and am quite happy with it, so I understand the basics, but I don't understand your comments about LVM.
I'm expecting to use a seperate physical disk for each element of the array, rather than chopping up a single disk into volumes.
So I don't understand where LVM comes into it? So every Disk will have one Partition using all available space of the respective disk. That means all of them need to have the same size.
The result of that operation is one raid volume of some size. I don´t know wether there are other disks in your system. Usually you would want to do some partioning, like putting /home on one device and the rest of the system somewhere else. Certainly you would want to have a swap device. All this is not mandatory but it is good common practice. There is no need to put a swap device on a raid-disk (a good reason not to integrate all diskspace in the raid-array). You could also consider, wether there is a need to put the parts of the system on a raid-array, which are easily recoverable by a reinstall. Anyway you will still have a need for a good back-up strategy, since the raid-array won´t help you when files get deletet for some reason. LVM gives you the flexibility to put partitions on the raid-array. -- __________________________________________ J.Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@suse.com
* Pawelczyk, Heiko wrote on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 12:09 +0100:
not mandatory but it is good common practice. There is no need to put a swap device on a raid-disk (a good reason not to integrate all diskspace in the raid-array).
I don't think so. If you use i.e. RAID1, and a disk fails, your swap would be corrupted or damaged or lost. In such a case, your system may happily crash. So I would say: for performance issues, you don't need to put swap on RAID0, since the kernel stripes swaps automatically AFAIK, but for security reasons, put it on RAID1 or 5 too. oki, Steffen -- Dieses Schreiben wurde maschinell erstellt, es trägt daher weder Unterschrift noch Siegel.
participants (2)
-
Pawelczyk, Heiko -
Steffen Dettmer