 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>>
>> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
>> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
>
> Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
> volume. :-)
Does Windoze let you do that yet?
> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
> other drives.
Heh. If only that were actually true...
[No, wait. I take that back. If I had *my* way, I'd have that hated My
Documents folder permanently removed.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>
> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
My dad is the only person I know who's tried it, and he has lost far
more data due to RAID glitches than to any physical hardware failure!
to it in a RAID-1 configuration. Every 6 hours or so, the RAID
controller would "fail" one of the drives and stop using it. Then you'd
have to tell it to rebuilt the array (BE CAREFUL TO SELECT THE RIGHT
SOURCE DRIVE!) and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then
it would work for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
In summary, it was hopeless and an utter waste of time.
Now all the *servers* here at work have RAID on them, but they have
expensive high-end UltraSCSI 360 RAID controllers with the
battery-backed RAM and so on and so forth. Nobody is rich enough to put
those in a desktop machine.
>> But I did it back when I only had one drive too. Makes reinstalling
>> the OS that much easier without losing work. (If anything on my PC
>> could be considered "work".)
>
> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
Backup onto *what*?
I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large enough
to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Or just mount the separate volume as a subdirectory of the system
>> volume. :-)
>
> Does Windoze let you do that yet?
Yes, that's also possible. IIRC it came with W2k.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
Yes.
These
aero@grunka ~ $ dmesg|grep 7\:\ ST37
[ 6.425893] ata2.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
[ 7.613720] ata4.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
[ 8.198858] ata5.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
[ 8.783579] ata6.00: ATA-7: ST3750640AS, 3.AAK, max UDMA/133
4pcs of 750G Barracudas give me this:
aero@grunka ~ $ df -h|grep md5
/dev/md5 2.1T 451G 1.7T 22% /home
That's RAID-5 -array, so it can handle a break-up on any of those disks.
These are RAID-1:
aero@grunka ~ $ df -h|egrep 'md0|md2'
/dev/md0 84G 20G 65G 24% /
/dev/md2 88G 22G 67G 25% /netroot
And so are these:
garmaugh ~ # df -h|grep md
/dev/md/0 962M 179M 734M 20% /
/dev/md/2 9.2G 2.1G 6.7G 24% /usr
/dev/md/3 13G 708M 12G 6% /var
> My dad is the only person I know who's tried it, and he has lost far
> more data due to RAID glitches than to any physical hardware failure!
I've also lost some data due to my own stupidity with RAID. OTOH, I've
saved at least 5 times that amount of data from disk breaks with RAID.
> have to tell it to rebuilt the array (BE CAREFUL TO SELECT THE RIGHT
> SOURCE DRIVE!)
I too can tell you that :). That's the way I erased one array - I synced
the empty disk over a fuller one.
> and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then
> it would work for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
Freaking slow, if RAID-1 takes many, many hours. That 2-terabyte array
took some hours and it's RAID-5, so the computer had to calculate all
the data. RAID-1 is "only" reading and writing and it's much faster.
> In summary, it was hopeless and an utter waste of time.
In summary, he did it wrong ;).
>> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
>> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
>
> Backup onto *what*?
Ie. on external HD?
> I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large enough
> to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
Surf man, surf.
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/143877
Smaller ones are cheaper:
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/128601
Plug it in, sync it (ie. with rsync oslt) and plug it out. Or buy 2 of
them, schedule a sync for every night and manually change the cable to
another drive every day (this is because offline backups are freaking
good idea).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc0807$1@news.povray.org...
>>> I mean, *now* I have multiple seperate physical HDs so it's kind of
>>> unavoidable having seperate logical volumes.
>>
>> No, it isn't. With RAID you can combine several HDs to one logical
>> volume, which even can hold if one of the disks break down.
>
> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>
Yup. My 'server' has four 160 GB sata drives in a RAID 5 config. Since it's
also my first stage backup location, I wanted redundancy. Just wish I'd
bought larger drives.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48bc06f6$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of other
>> system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including other
>> drives.
>
> Heh. If only that were actually true...
It is true. I can't remember offhand how to do it, but it's very possible
since Win Xp (I think).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co [dot] za> wrote in message
news:48bc1bbc@news.povray.org...
>
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:48bc06f6$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>
>>> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
>>> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
>>> other drives.
>>
>> Heh. If only that were actually true...
>
> It is true. I can't remember offhand how to do it, but it's very possible
> since Win Xp (I think).
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147 (for win xp)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Note you can also make "my documents" and "desktop" (and a bunch of
>>>> other system-defined folders) point to anywhere you want, including
>>>> other drives.
>>>
>>> Heh. If only that were actually true...
>>
>> It is true. I can't remember offhand how to do it, but it's very
>> possible since Win Xp (I think).
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147 (for win xp)
Well who'd have thought it. There's actually a UI for that...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>
> Yes.
>
> That's RAID-5 -array, so it can handle a break-up on any of those disks.
>
> These are RAID-1:
> And so are these:
Is that software RAID or hardware RAID?
My dad went with a hardware RAID solution, and it was utterly useless.
You had to resilver it every few hours because it kept breaking.
>> and wait many, many hours for that to complete. And then it would work
>> for another few hours before failing one of the drives again.
>
> Freaking slow, if RAID-1 takes many, many hours. That 2-terabyte array
> took some hours and it's RAID-5, so the computer had to calculate all
> the data. RAID-1 is "only" reading and writing and it's much faster.
Ever tried to perform a low-level format on a HD? No matter what size it
is, it always takes an extremely long time. (The bigger the drive, the
faster it is, but the power to weight ratio seems fairly constant, so it
always takes a long time.) Formatting a huge drive with, say, FAT or
NTFS only takes a few minutes, but a low-level format takes an hour or more.
Resilvering the mirror was similar. It's mirrored at the hardware level,
so the disks must be block-by-block identical.
>>> Yep, that's true and very reasonable. You should also RAID the
>>> work-partition and take scheduled backups ;).
>>
>> Backup onto *what*?
>
> Ie. on external HD?
Yeah, I guess... Doesn't seem like you're gaining a huge amount, but I
guess it's better than nothing.
>> I have, like, 100 GB of data now. I'm not aware of anything large
>> enough to hold that other than another HD. (Or an LTO tape...)
>
> Surf man, surf.
...in other words, a HD. Like what I said. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does anybody actually use RAID on a home system?
>>
>
> Yup. My 'server' has four 160 GB sata drives in a RAID 5 config. Since
> it's also my first stage backup location, I wanted redundancy. Just wish
> I'd bought larger drives.
Heh. And I thought *I* was crazy for owning just _one_ 160 GB drive in a
home PC...
What on earth do you use it for?
(I filled mine saving large uncompressed videos rendered with POV-Ray.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
