Jack Schneider wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:21:23 -0500 > "Barclay, Daniel" <dan...@fgm.com> wrote: > >> Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: >>> Barclay, Daniel wrote: ... >>>> ... is GRUB taking advantage of the fact that the RAID metadata is >>>> written at the end of a partition ... >> ... >>>> If so, how reliable is that? >>>> >>>> Should one put /boot on a plain, non-RAID partition on one disk and >>>> ...maintain a backup /boot partition on >>>> the second disk, or is it fine to put /boot on a mirrored >>>> partition (so maintaining redundancy is automatic) and let GRUB >>>> read the partition directly? >>> ... why make things more complicated and not automatic? >> ... I _am_ trying to avoid the >> complicated and non-automatic solution (trying to check whether the >> simpler solution is reliable). ...
> Hi, Daniel et al > > The following is an outline of my setup on a couple of the system disks. > > Roughly I have two md devices for the host system, md0 & md1: > > j...@host:~$ df -m > Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/md0 9389 7157 1755 81% / > tmpfs 4005 1 4005 1% /lib/init/rw > udev 10 1 10 2% /dev > tmpfs 4005 0 4005 0% /dev/shm > /dev/dm-0 40318 11628 26642 31% /home > /dev/dm-4 19686 15356 3331 83% /home/jack/XP_VDI > /dev/dm-6 30238 7453 21250 26% /home/jack/suse > /dev/dm-2 3024 70 2802 3% /tmp > /dev/dm-1 8064 3426 4229 45% /var > /dev/hda 90 90 0 100% /media/cdrom0 > > The only concern I have is that / is marginally small. It's > expandable tho. > /boot is just on /mdo. I have run without incident for over a year. But if you haven't had any disk-failure incidents, do you know whether your setup will reliably work if either disk fails? (Did you mean that you simulated disk failure?) Daniel -- (Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]
