On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:41 -0500, Zane C.Bowers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You really do not want to do it this way. Setting up raid on a > > > > > partitions just seems like such a bad idea on so many levels. > > > > > You should do it on the entire disk. Last time I remember > > > > > messing with it, the setup screen for that was not capable of > > > > > doing that. > > > > > > > > Why do you think that? > > > > Being able to do it by partition provides for more flexibility. > > > > > > Because it provides to totally freaking unneeded process. I don't > > > see how it provides any more flexibility. > > > > What if your disks aren't the same size or you want to handle > > portions like swap in a different way? If you do happen to > > want identical partitioning on 2 drives you can do that in > > one command line with sfdisk, although I prefer to do it > > interactively to be sure it is right. > > Then the smallest disk determines the size. Or you could put the mirror of some partitions elsewhere... > If you are not raiding the > swap as well, you are screwed. The swap or a chunk of it going missing > is not a good thing. Don't count on continuing to run if one of the swap mirrors breaks. I have a machine with a slightly flakey controller that kicks a drive out every few months and have had it sometimes survive and sometimes kill processes more or less at random when it loses a swap mirror. Since it has caused more problems to lose processes that should be running than a clean reboot, the last time that happened I didn't reconnect the swap mirror - and uptime is around 500 days now (actually it shows 10 days but this is RH7.3 where the counter wraps at 497 days and I know it didn't reboot). Maybe things are different in the 2.6 kernels - I have some running with mirrored swap but none of the drives have failed there. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
