Re: raid + lvm setup
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:52:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >
> > Then LVs for everything including swap.
>
> my genuine curiousity question is why you would bother to put swap on raid? I
> suppose if you had a lot of swapping going on and a drive failed, it
> could be catastrophic, but that's the only reason I can see. And this
> may be more than enough reason... I wonder what the overhead for that
> it though?
That is the reason. The idea is that if a drive fails I can still
shutdown gracefully, pop in a new drive (until SATA is hot-swap), reboot
into the degraded raid1 (in single if /home is not also on raid1),
reformat the drive, and get the raid1 resyncing.
I haven't noticed any overhead, although I have on GB of ram and
actually haven't swapped yet. Swap is just there in case and for /tmp
on tmpfs which won't be any more overhead than having /tmp on raid1.
>
> [...]
> >
> > Does this seem like a workable/wise plan or here there be dragons? Is
> > there any reason to think that 20 GB is too small for a fully installed
> > workstation including swap and /tmp (everything but /home)?
> >
>
> certainly seems workable to me, but I don't really know about these
> things too much. Certainly, though (depending on how big your swap
> is), 20G is enough for the system.
>
Is 20 G overkill? Would 15 G be fine? The risk is that if I guess too
small, one can't extend a raid1, I'd have to make another raid1 and add
it or some such gymnastics. In this case, drive space is cheap.
I eventually want to get into video editing, watching TV and movies, and
Lyx. I don't know how much disk space they use. How much does a fully
loaded system take (I've never before had the horsepower to bother with
such stuff).
Doug.
Reply to: