On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:13:57PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: [snip] >> >> As a general rule, you're better off relying on backups or RAID to >> handle such situations anyway. Or seen from another point of view: if >> it's OK with you to lose an arbitrarily chosen 1/3 or 1/2 of your data, >> then why would you mind losing it all instead? > think we are heading ot, but to add some more info to it anyway. there are several aspects to look at. availability - mainly done by looking at raid levels manageablility - lvm / mdm backups - only way to do this is backuping up info, raid doesn't help with rm -fr / people tend to confuse availability with restoration ! > > As has been mentioned in another thread, RAID 1 pairs with LVM is pretty > safe and flexible. The disadvantage is when adding more capacity, you > have to add drives in pairs. > > ZFS (formerly Zetta File System) can do all this and more beside, but > right now, with one exception, you have to do all the thinking yourself, > it's not just a matter of adding a new drive and walking away. The > exception? Very expensive storage appliances from Sun. Those run > something, OpenSolaris maybe (haven't bothered to look it up), with ZFS. > Of course, expanding requires you to go back to Sun. > > MArk Allums > > > > -- "I was raised in the West. The West of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California. " - George W. Bush 04/08/2000 Los Angeles, CA in Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature