Re: Install and RAID
On Monday 22 January 2001 17:04, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 22-Jan-01, 07:55 (CST), Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
> > One major advantage of what I suggested is the following situation (which
> > happens often):
> >
> > 1) Someone with minimal knowledge gets an install CD and installs a
> > system. 2) Someone else adds some server programs and it becomes an
> > important server. 3) I get called in to make the machine a serious
> > server but I aren't allowed to re-install.
>
> Find new clients. Clients who won't you let you do the work they hired
> you to do aren't worth the trouble.
Find the real world.
Companies that do things in a sane way can hire good people for really small
amounts of money. If you want a good salary then you have to put up with
this stuff and much worse.
> More to the point, I'm not real comfortable about making the default
> install RAID capable, when (I'd guess) the majority of our users won't
> ever use it. It seems an unnecessary complication.
I suspect that many more people will use it when it's easy to use.
> Hmmm, what happens when I do a install with the RAID default, then
> rebuild the kernel without RAID support...does it still work? Or do I
> have to futz with the partition type? If the latter, I think making RAID
> the default would be a bad idea.
If you choose to mount the device /dev/hda1 or whatever instead of the RAID
device then it'll work.
> OTOH, I think making "RAID capable" a install-time setup option is a
> great idea, and off-hand (i.e. I have no real idea) doesn't seem like
> significantly more work.
Actually it is quite a bit of work.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: