View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
FizzyWidget Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1133 Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:22 pm Post subject: How would I do this under Gentoo? |
|
|
I currently have a HTPC running Windows Home Server 2011 (don't ask, It was a present) which is using stablebit drive pool to make all the drives appear as one large drive
I would like to move it to Gentoo for performance and cost reasons (AV and stuff is getting too damn expensive), other than using Raid0 or LVM to make all the drives appear as one and giving me the full amount of space on the drive, although should a drive fail I would lose everything, even though I will have backups, is there any other way to do this? _________________ I know 43 ways to kill with a SKITTLE, so taste my rainbow bitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Google RAID. RAID 5 (tolerates single drive failure; minimum 3 drives) and RAID 6 (tolerates double drive failure; minimum 4 drives).
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FizzyWidget Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1133 Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
but then a drive is lost in raid5 for the parity isnt it? or i should say the amount from each drive that would be lost for parity would be equivalent to one of the drives
in this case 500GB _________________ I know 43 ways to kill with a SKITTLE, so taste my rainbow bitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, indeed. No free lunch.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FizzyWidget Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1133 Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"As of August 2012, Dell, Hitachi, Seagate, Netapp, EMC, HDS, SUN Fishworks and IBM have current advisories against the use of RAID 5 with high capacity drives and in large arrays"
How big do they mean I wonder.....I have 2TB :/ _________________ I know 43 ways to kill with a SKITTLE, so taste my rainbow bitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gusar Advocate
Joined: 09 Apr 2005 Posts: 2665 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AUFS is an option. Never used it myself for this kind of thing, but it's feature-set allows it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think people like us have "large arrays", but still, I wonder what they actually mean? I've read that on very large arrays that, as they age, if recovery time after a drive failure is long (and with very large drives, this is exacerbated), then the likelihood of a second drive failure is too significant to ignore. A second failure during recovery would crash the whole array. RAID itself isn't a bad thing but for very large arrays, RAID 6 or RAID-Z is now favoured over RAID 5.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FizzyWidget Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1133 Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lets hope that software raid will allow me to use 3 x 500gb and what ever is left on the first drive once i have partitioned it for the system :p
raid 1 for 100meg /boot
raid 1 for swap
raid 6 the rest
that doable ? would all of it have to be raid6? _________________ I know 43 ways to kill with a SKITTLE, so taste my rainbow bitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, mostly doable. RAID 6 requires a minimum of four drives; you'll have to go with RAID 5. I'd use RAID 0 for the swap (in fact, I do), for performance reasons.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FizzyWidget Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1133 Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i have 4 drives
4 x 500GB
so if I have this right (prob dont)
last I used legacy grub or grub 2 i couldn't get it to see anything other than raid1 so that will be for boot
boot - raid 1 - on all 4 drive
swap - raid0
rest raid5/6
? _________________ I know 43 ways to kill with a SKITTLE, so taste my rainbow bitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, exactly correct. Sorry; somehow I thought you only had 3 drives. To a simple bootloader, each individual drive of a RAID 1 array just looks like a stand-alone drive. That's what grub sees.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FizzyWidget Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 Posts: 1133 Location: 127.0.0.1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
great!!! now to find an amd64 minimal install cd that works :p _________________ I know 43 ways to kill with a SKITTLE, so taste my rainbow bitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|