Jack Schneider wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:21:23 -0500
> "Barclay, Daniel" <daniel@fgm.com> wrote:
>
>> Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>>> Barclay, Daniel wrote:
...
>>>> ... is GRUB taking advantage of the fact that the RAID metadata is
>>>> written at the end of a partition ...
>> ...
>>>> If so, how reliable is that?
>>>>
>>>> Should one put /boot on a plain, non-RAID partition on one disk and
>>>> ...maintain a backup /boot partition on
>>>> the second disk, or is it fine to put /boot on a mirrored
>>>> partition (so maintaining redundancy is automatic) and let GRUB
>>>> read the partition directly?
>>> ... why make things more complicated and not automatic?
>> ... I _am_ trying to avoid the
>> complicated and non-automatic solution (trying to check whether the
>> simpler solution is reliable).
...
> Hi, Daniel et al
>
> The following is an outline of my setup on a couple of the system disks.
>
> Roughly I have two md devices for the host system, md0 & md1:
>
> jack@host:~$ df -m
> Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md0 9389 7157 1755 81% /
> tmpfs 4005 1 4005 1% /lib/init/rw
> udev 10 1 10 2% /dev
> tmpfs 4005 0 4005 0% /dev/shm
> /dev/dm-0 40318 11628 26642 31% /home
> /dev/dm-4 19686 15356 3331 83% /home/jack/XP_VDI
> /dev/dm-6 30238 7453 21250 26% /home/jack/suse
> /dev/dm-2 3024 70 2802 3% /tmp
> /dev/dm-1 8064 3426 4229 45% /var
> /dev/hda 90 90 0 100% /media/cdrom0
>
> The only concern I have is that / is marginally small. It's
> expandable tho.
> /boot is just on /mdo. I have run without incident for over a year.
But if you haven't had any disk-failure incidents, do you know whether
your setup will reliably work if either disk fails? (Did you mean that
you simulated disk failure?)
Daniel
--
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]