On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 12:45, Allan Wind wrote: > On 2003-05-20 11:48:56, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > This is more for mental future reference - are there any filesystems > > that are better choices on RAID (or certain RAID configurations) and any > > that are absolutely horrid? > > If raid means large partitions to you, I would use a journaling file > system (i.e. not ext2). And if you consider expanding the fs live make > sure the fs support that. > > > /Allan No - for me it means Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives - with emphasis on the redundancy and the ability to replace (hopefully hotswap) and rebuild/maintain data availability. I've done a couple of servers with RAID1 running ext3, but I haven't actually seen anything about good/bad filesystems in that environment, and I am looking at a project which leans to RAID5, which has me trying to find useful information before bidding on the installation (aka, is it going to be more of a pain than it is worth?) -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part