> Calyth said:
> > I'm no expert comparing to the other people here who've experimented the
> > whole thing out, but I'd think that you might want to get at least 3 IDE
> > drives and set up RAID 5 instead.
> > Say you got 3 20GB HDs, RAID 1 (mirroring) would only give you 20GB of
> > space, while RAID 5 would provide more, yet still be able to make sure
> > that if one of the drive fails, you can still run with the data on the
> > other two drives and not be missing anything. I'm fairly sure that most
> > high end server at least uses some form of RAID 5 because of its
> > advantages. Others already raised a good point. Does data integrity means
> > no
> > downtime or no data loss. If they meant no downtime, then your task is
> > much, much harder.
when installed and configured properly...
- i claim that you can boot from hda or hdc in raid1
- i claim that you can boot from 3/4 disks in raid5
== that is the whole point of raid... that you can survive a disk
== failure ( data is preserved and you can still boot w/o
== touching the keyboard )
- different distro does different things
( unfortunately, fortunately, rh installer does a good job for
( "surviving a disk failure" .. always works for me .. no problems
- different installl methods leads to different problems..
-- if data integretity is important... redundantly back it up
-- if data availability is important ... use raid1.. raid5 ..
-- if the system must survive a "dead pc" ... use clusters
-- you can spend the $$$ upfront to protect against failures or
spend the $$$ after the system or parts of the system dies...
c ya
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
