[linux-lvm] offtopic but ...
tim at connectlive.com
Wed May 8 08:23:02 UTC 2002
> Hehe Tim,
> that was fast, but as i told little bit lower in the email I dont want to
> put everything in a RAID. The RAID controller isnt the problem if you buy
> me a further 160GB Maxtor i will buy the RAID contoller or do
> software-RAID. ;-)
Fair enough. Personally (having to do this at work) I feel like an IDE
enclosure or a hardware RAID card is a relatively small investment in
data security, but then again, the 500GB I have live right now is not
content that I can tolerate data loss on. We probably should not use
IDE drives for it at all, except that it is replicated onto a whole
steaming mess of SCSI drives, also RAIDed up...
I think your requirements are different than the ones I am used to.
> The goal is simply to combine more diskspace+more security then just a
> LVM+one logical unit (mountpoint/device where you dont have to care all
> the time
> how the data gets stored and where)+better usage of the diskspace (you
> dont have on the one everything free and the other is halffull.
Makes sense, but I'm not sure how one would dynamically reallocate
parity information while everything is in-flight (eg. live).
> Or just imagine you would like to have 500gb and have only 4x3,5 slots to
> build the harddrives in and the maximum size is at the moment 160GB. How
> would you do it and you would give up some security for the advantage to
> have more space but not to lose everything if one drive fails.
> And the idea i described in the email below is somehow between a RAID0/LVM
> and a RAID5.
Again, the difference between my requirements and the ones you're
outlining is that I simply call a vendor and order another enclosure
when I need another 500GB.
I think I am beginning to see what your idea is, but the logistics of
having LVM take care of the metadata seem rather daunting.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god;
it has powerful muscles, but no personality.
More information about the linux-lvm