| Article: |
Managing Disk Space with LVM | |
| Subject: | Alternate RAID-1 migration | |
| Date: | 2006-04-30 19:04:48 | |
| From: | jrzagar | |
|
Instead of ending up with four raid-1 devices, wouldn't it be easier to do the following?
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.
-
Alternate RAID-1 migration
2006-04-30 23:37:05 bryceharrington [View]
-
Alternate RAID-1 migration
2006-05-11 14:40:36 gr34t [View]
"Note that part of the reason we picked this approach was just that it could be explained more concisely than other options we were considering."
i agree with you my friend!!! take a look here:
http://www.filesharing-p2p.to/archive/english-subforum/p2p-news/dmca-20-t-41626.html -
Alternate RAID-1 migration
2006-05-02 05:43:19 Tormak [View]
Bryce, you should let people know that how you've done it is going to be performance impacting due to device contention.
(As a performance engineer I'm sure you know this ;)
The parent's method is a much better approach.
-
Alternate RAID-1 migration
2006-04-30 19:45:07 keescook [View]
Excellent observation! :)
Doing it this way or the other is a matter of preference. Some people like maintaining the size of the original component devices, and some like maintaining the number of the original component devices.
For the purposes of the article, showing how to end up with more devices seemed to serve as a better teaching example, as it tangentially demonstrates how to just plain add more disks. :)



Note that part of the reason we picked this approach was just that it could be explained more concisely than other options we were considering.