Tim Woodall (12023-03-17):
> Yes. It's possible. Took me about 5 minutes to work out the steps. All
> of which are already mentioned upthread.
All of them, except one.
> mdadm --build ${md} --level=raid1 --raid-devices=2 ${d1} missing
Until now, all suggestions with mdadm started with:
mdadm --
David Christensen wrote:
> On 3/17/23 19:25, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:05:27PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > > On 3/17/23 12:36, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > This thread has piqued my interest, because I have been lax in doing
> > > > proper
> > > > b
On 3/17/23 19:25, Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:05:27PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
On 3/17/23 12:36, Gregory Seidman wrote:
[...]
This thread has piqued my interest, because I have been lax in doing proper
backups. I currently run a RAID1 mirroring across three disks (
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:05:27PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 3/17/23 12:36, Gregory Seidman wrote:
[...]
> > This thread has piqued my interest, because I have been lax in doing proper
> > backups. I currently run a RAID1 mirroring across three disks (plus a hot
> > spare). On top of tha
On 3/17/23 12:36, Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:00:46PM +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
PS There's that old saying, "RAID is not a substitute for a backup".
What you're trying to do sounds suspiciously similar to an old "RAID
split-mirror" backup technique. Just saying.
This threa
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023, Nicolas George wrote:
Nicolas George (12023-03-17):
It is not vagueness, it is genericness: /dev/something is anything and
contains anything, and I want a solution that works for anything.
Just to be clear: I KNOW that what I am asking, the ability to
synchronize an exist
Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:00:46PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> [...]
> > PS There's that old saying, "RAID is not a substitute for a backup".
> > What you're trying to do sounds suspiciously similar to an old "RAID
> > split-mirror" backup technique. Just saying.
...
> It soun
Nicolas George (12023-03-17):
> It is not vagueness, it is genericness: /dev/something is anything and
> contains anything, and I want a solution that works for anything.
Just to be clear: I KNOW that what I am asking, the ability to
synchronize an existing block device onto another over the netwo
Greg Wooledge (12023-03-17):
> > I have a block device on the local host /dev/something with data on it.
^^^
There. I have data, therefore, any solution that assumes the data is not
there can only be proposed by somebody who di
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 06:00:46PM +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
> PS There's that old saying, "RAID is not a substitute for a backup".
> What you're trying to do sounds suspiciously similar to an old "RAID
> split-mirror" backup technique. Just saying.
This thread has piqued my interest, because I hav
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Dan Ritter (12023-03-17):
> > If Reco didn't understand your question, it's because you are
> > very light on details.
>
> No. Reco's answers contradict the very first sentence of my first
> e-mail.
The first sentence of your first
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023, Nicolas George wrote:
Dan Ritter (12023-03-17):
If Reco didn't understand your question, it's because you are
very light on details.
No. Reco's answers contradict the very first sentence of my first
e-mail.
Is this possible?
How can Reco's answers contradict that.
Re
Dan Ritter (12023-03-17):
> If Reco didn't understand your question, it's because you are
> very light on details.
No. Reco's answers contradict the very first sentence of my first
e-mail.
--
Nicolas George
Nicolas George wrote:
> Reco (12023-03-17):
> > Well, theoretically you can use Btrfs instead.
>
> No, I cannot. Obviously.
>
> > What you're trying to do sounds suspiciously similar to an old "RAID
> > split-mirror" backup technique.
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> If you do not understand the questi
Reco (12023-03-17):
> Well, theoretically you can use Btrfs instead.
No, I cannot. Obviously.
> What you're trying to do sounds suspiciously similar to an old "RAID
> split-mirror" backup technique.
Absolutely not.
If you do not understand the question, it is okay to not answer.
--
Nicolas
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 03:46:54PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Reco (12023-03-17):
> > Yes, it will destroy the contents of the device, so backup
>
> No. If I accepted to have to rely on an extra copy of the data, I would
> not be trying to do something complicated like that.
Well, theoretical
Reco (12023-03-17):
> Yes, it will destroy the contents of the device, so backup
No. If I accepted to have to rely on an extra copy of the data, I would
not be trying to do something complicated like that.
--
Nicolas George
Hi.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 01:52:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Reco (12023-03-17):
> > - DRBD
>
> That looks interesting, with “meta-disk device”.
>
> > - MDADM + iSCSI
>
> Maybe possible, but not the way you suggest, see below.
>
> > - zpool attach/detach
>
> I do not think th
Reco (12023-03-17):
> - DRBD
That looks interesting, with “meta-disk device”.
> - MDADM + iSCSI
Maybe possible, but not the way you suggest, see below.
> - zpool attach/detach
I do not think that is an option. Can you explain how you think it can
work?
> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=mirror
Hi.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Is this possible: ?
Actually, there are at least three ways of doing it:
- DRBD
- MDADM + iSCSI
- zpool attach/detach
But DRBD was designed with continuous replication in mind, and ZFS has
severe processor architectur
Hi.
Is this possible: ?
I have a block device on the local host /dev/something with data on it.
I have a block device on the remote host remote:/dev/something with the
exact same size but no relevant data on it.
I have room on the local host in /data or an extra block device (could
be loop).
W
21 matches
Mail list logo
