Re: making a huge fileserver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/01/06 18:55, Hern?n Freschi wrote:
> Hi folks, I know this may be not the right place to ask, but I thought
> I'd give it a try.
>
> I'm trying to build a fileserver. A small, but extensible one. I plan to
> start with 500GB and grow from there. Obviously, I want redundancy, so I
> want it to be a software RAID. I don't care too much about performance
> because I'll read those files over a low traffic network.
>
> I think the RAID level I want is RAID-5, which, if I understand
> correctly, lets me have an arbitrary number of disks, as long as I have
> 3 or more. The filesystem of choice is XFS because I'd be storing big
> files (think DVD ISOs, and worse yet: hard disk images for immediate
> recovery) on the fileserver.
>
> The question is: What are the possibilities for growth on that array? I
> read that it is not easy to add more disks to a RAID-5, but that is just
> what I want. Suppose I buy 3 320GB disks making a 640GB array. Then I
> fill that up and just buy a new drive, grow the array, and grow the XFS
> filesystem. Is that possible/stable/secure/production-ready?
>
> Google suggested this: www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/LVM_on_RAID
> But I think it's not what I want. I think the article says that I can
> add more ARRAYS to the LVM. That is, every time I want to add a new
> drive I'd need to buy 3 more. Is that so?
According to this page, kernel 2.6.17 and mdadm 2.5.2 allows you to
add volumes to software RAID-5. Search for the string:
mdadm 2.5.2 it is possible
http://www.gagme.com/greg/linux/raid-lvm.php
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFIM12S9HxQb37XmcRAoJAAKCIWR/z4PypAfN1Jk11HJbKdYFWtwCfc4h8
mRso4SvQiQ58R0LmtfUR/MM=
=S2kv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: