On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
> I hear what you are saying, but I had a related problem which was similar. well... it's funny, because this is exactly what i need. > Anyway.... the long and short of it is, I can use mdadm without regard to > what devices are found, such as /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc and the like as I > rely purely on the UUID functionality, which as you know, mdadm handles > perfectly well. ;-) :) well. that was nice. the scenario you describe is precisely what i sort-of had planned, but didn't have the expertise to do so was going to recommend just two drives and then rsync to the other two. _however_, given that you've solved exactly what is needed / best / recommended for when you have 4 external drives (which i do) that's bloody fantastic :) ok, i bring in phil now, who i was talking to yesterday about this. what he said was (and i may get this wrong: it only went in partly) - something along the lines of "remember to build the drives with individual mdadm bitmaps enabled". this will save a great deal of arseing about when re-adding drives which didn't get properly added: only 1/2 a 1Tb drive will need syncing, not an entire drive :) the bitmap system he says has hierarchical granularity apparently. also, he recommended taking at least one of the external drives *out* of its external box and making it *internal*. the reason for that is that a) if the drives ever get powered down accidentally (e.g. by cleaning ladies) you're f****d b) if you move a drive or two internally, it's possible to prioritise those drives as "reading" ones, and to make the external ones "write" priority. so, the data gets read from the internal one, and changes get propagated to all drives. ... thoughts? l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=9WA9ayQ8sioeBsaocqJBigN+=7...@mail.gmail.com
