On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Rodney Baker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:30:54 John Andersen wrote:
[...snip...]
If its raid0 you have bigger problems, about the same problems is you had used LVM and skipped raid all together, but even given the lack of redundancy, LVM makes more sense than raid0 in linux. So I'm guessing no sane person would use raid0 just to concatenate drives in linux, and you probably don't have raid0.
Hmmm; last time I saw him my doctor said he thought I was still sane, yet I'm using raid0 for exactly that purpose...
My previous experience with LVM was that it was a PITA to set up and then it got corrupted due to a power outage. As a result /home was completely hosed :-(.
I learned from that - I won't use LVM again. /home is now on a raid1 array, with nightly backups to an external drive, and non-critical data (e.g. stuff downloaded from the net) goes onto a raid0 array that I used to concat three smaller partitions that
Don't assume from the fact that you have not YET had a failure on raid0 that it is any safer than LVM. Its about the same risk. Loss of any of one of the partitions may cause loss of ALL data. Depending on what file system you format the raid0 with it could be really serious to just have a couple sectors go bad. Raid0 composed of 3 drives TRIPLES you chance of loss, because a fault on any ONE drive may render the whole thing borken. If you had a 1 in 10000 chance of a drive failure previously, you now have a 3 in 10000 chance. Really, If I had three drives of approximately the same size, I would accept 2 drives worth of storage and sacrifice the other drive to the gods of Raid5. -- ----------JSA--------- There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that can read binary and those that can't. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org