On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 07:02 +1000, Paul Gear wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: > > ... > >>>Too bad. MD Raid is tough for a bootable setup with automated tools. > >> > >>This is part of what i don't understand. As Alvin Oga and i were > >>discussing a while back (see archives), it is a supported configuration > >>by the kernel, and Red Hat have supported it since 7.3. I guess that's > >>why Progeny decided to port anaconda - it worked out your tough problem. > > > > > > It not so much the anaconda issue, more over it is the "Debian Way" of > > doing things. I guess^WKNOW, Grub has issue with md as root. But, as > > with all thing Linux... <accent style="stereotypical crusty German > > Colonel"> "We have ways of making it work! Muahahaha!"</accent> > > I'm not particularly attached to grub. Lilo seems to work in these cases. > > > ... > >>I've read several HOWTOs on it, but none of them seem to solve the > >>problem completely: > >> > >>http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2004/07/msg01195.html > >>http://www.james.rcpt.to/programs/debian/raid1/ > >>http://members.ferrara.linux.it/calicant/docs/debianraid/debian_raid1.html > >> > >>I just did a bit more searching and found > >>http://alioth.debian.org/projects/rootraiddoc/ - maybe i'll try that. > > > > > > I am surprised you haven't gotten it to work. > > Me too. I might give it another try with the last RAID HOWTO i found > above, but Progeny seems like a better option to me, so i'll probably > only do it if the next version doesn't come > > > Yes it is a Mickey mouse way to setup the "Ultimate" Linux > > Distribution... > > What's Mickey Mouse about it? You can't have a server without RAID, and > most low-end servers don't have hardware RAID. At least, only 2 of the > 6 servers i've bought in the last year had hardware RAID, and they were > Promise RAID, which is about the same as software RAID, only harder to > implement (at least on Red Hat/Fedora). Most of the servers i set up > have very simple OS disk requirements, so minimal partitioning is ideal > (most of my machines at work have a separate /var, but i don't bother > with that at home). No, not YOUR wanting to do MD raid on /... the PROCESS for making it happen, is Mickey Mouse. Please make sure you read it proper. I wasn't clear enough probably... but then again, most times people's eyes gloss over when I am talking to them. And just to let you know Joey Hess has been going to town on it. Lotsa work been going on with your suggestion(need), already. > > but, at present, this Voluntary project doesn't want to "Do it > > auto-magically" when there is a way to do it with "other means". Yes, > > it is asinine, but think about how Debian really works (well, doesn't > > work sometimes). It is quite possible, someone will get a Hair up the > > arse and make this work... but until then it'll be a kludge to get > > proper. > > What do you mean "auto-magically"? I don't expect it to just work out > what i want and do it - i'm happy to partition and set up filesystems > manually. The trick is i want an initrd and kernel that work with RAID > on /. I DOOOO want to get a Functioning conversion from non-raid to full raid exto-facto install. > > Personally, I have a server with lvm on-top of a "Promise Raid > > Mirroring" setup. Works, I see only one drive. But I have / as an LV. > > I'm happy to have LVM as well. I just haven't found it that useful in > recent installs, since most of the servers i use have 2 internal disks > and nothing else (any RAID data storage is outboard on fibre channel > disk arrays, and that is only on my most critical servers). Yeap, LVM to me, is the BEST way to handle Disk space. But then you can do LPP mirroring in LVM2 (I think)... which would fit your needs far better I am thinking. > > See if you can tell were I patterned my VG names (on machine with more > > than one VG)from: > > > > /dev/rootvg > > /dev/datavg > > /dev/scratchvg > > Looks like AIX to me, although it's been a long time since i touched it > (v3.1). Yeah, AIX, is my second choice for Commercial UNIX. My First Choice is OSF/1 (Tru64), but that is going by the wayside. > > ... > > I'd love to start a project that will do all the work after install. Do > > it they way the Admin wants... asking questions, verifying things as you > > go, making the needed hardware addressing changes. But, I currently only > > have coupla hours a week to start something like that. > > > > Mainly, I value Family Time. > > Seriously, why would you bother? It has already been solved by someone > else (Progeny), and it's only a matter of time before that becomes a > usable solution. Especially when you have a family (mine is waiting for > me to come to breakfast now instead of writing email :-). I look at things this way, I setup a machine the way i would like to have it setup. I then get told to solidify the machine and make it redundant. It is always at the last moments for a consultant too. This way you can use it for initial setup and 3 months down the road when you get the change order coming down from On High. I also, like the flexibility of being able to do it "after", as a second thought... -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part