Hard drive imaging
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: eeepc+wifi+Wetherspoon
Next: Breaking into Ubuntu
From: jasee on 24 Jun 2008 12:51 "Ian Rawlings" <news06(a)tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message news:48611e09$0$1347$834e42db(a)reader.greatnowhere.com... > On 2008-06-24, jasee <jasee(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Haven't used it myself but according to wikipedia it will do raid1 (which >> is >> slightly more useful, if you trust software raid) > > I'd trust software raid more than hardware raid, on the grounds that > it's got better support tools normally (at least when you're running > linux) and you've got a wealth of hardware that can take over the raid > array in the event of hardware failure. Doesn't make sense. Raided software arrays are totally different from raided software. > A hardware raid card needs an > identical card to be available before you can even start to try and > recover from a hardware problem. It's usually disks that fail not contoller cards > > As for raid 1, probably, I don't really keep track of them, but I know > it won't do raid 5, I forgot about it doing mirroring, which is good > because I want to do that and was going to look at software raid other > than LVM.. If you've going to do raid, raid 0 has no protection whatsoever! Very dangerous! Unless you've got the disks to consider raid 5 (or above) then raid 1 at least offers protection. > >>> As far as normal partitions are concerned, you can't move them around, >>> combine them and split them to suit without bringing the entire system >>> down so you can feck about with the partition table. >> >> You can of course do all this from a bootable cd running gnome partition >> editor or parted, however nothing can be done if it's all LVM > > You *can't* of course do any of that from a bootable CD, as it > requires the system to be *bought down* to do it. You have to *boot > from the CD*, as you can't mess with the partitions *while the system > is running*. Emphasis added as you've missed it twice so far, trying > to make sure you don't miss it a third time. I think you've missed the fact that I'm talking about bootable cds running linux and partition managers such as gparted (which ruins from run from their own bootable* cds )(in case_you_ miss that) *A bootable cd= one which is self booting when the computer starts (in case you don't understand that) PS this means the computer hasd to be shut down first. > > As for bootable CDs being unable to work with LVM, that's not the case > at all. Well, I'd be interested to hear of a utility that runs from it's own bootable cd which recognises LVM and is able to work with them. Gparted and gnome partition editor aren't able to
From: Ian Rawlings on 24 Jun 2008 13:40 On 2008-06-24, jasee <jasee(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > "Ian Rawlings" <news06(a)tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message > news:48611e09$0$1347$834e42db(a)reader.greatnowhere.com... >> On 2008-06-24, jasee <jasee(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Haven't used it myself but according to wikipedia it will do raid1 (which >>> is >>> slightly more useful, if you trust software raid) >> >> I'd trust software raid more than hardware raid, on the grounds that >> it's got better support tools normally (at least when you're running >> linux) and you've got a wealth of hardware that can take over the raid >> array in the event of hardware failure. > > Doesn't make sense. Raided software arrays are totally different from raided > software. What are you on about now? >> A hardware raid card needs an >> identical card to be available before you can even start to try and >> recover from a hardware problem. > > It's usually disks that fail not contoller cards Usually. Why add a further level of complication by using a hardware raid card. > If you've going to do raid, raid 0 has no protection whatsoever! Very > dangerous! RAID is not just for protection. > I think you've missed the fact that I'm talking about bootable cds running > linux and partition managers such as gparted (which ruins from run from > their own bootable* cds )(in case_you_ miss that) I think you missed the fact that you asked why people bother using LVM, one reason is reconfiguration while live, which I mentioned, which you ignored and stated that it could "all" be done with partitions. I point that out and you then say the above. It's killfile time. Goodbye. -- Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
From: jasee on 24 Jun 2008 17:58 Ian Rawlings wrote: > On 2008-06-24, jasee <jasee(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> "Ian Rawlings" <news06(a)tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message >> news:48611e09$0$1347$834e42db(a)reader.greatnowhere.com... >>> On 2008-06-24, jasee <jasee(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Haven't used it myself but according to wikipedia it will do raid1 >>>> (which >>>> is >>>> slightly more useful, if you trust software raid) >>> >>> I'd trust software raid more than hardware raid, on the grounds that >>> it's got better support tools normally (at least when you're running >>> linux) and you've got a wealth of hardware that can take over the raid >>> array in the event of hardware failure. >> >> Doesn't make sense. Raided software arrays are totally different from >> raided >> software. > > What are you on about now? Yes, trying to talk sense to a fool is a waste of time > >>> A hardware raid card needs an >>> identical card to be available before you can even start to try and >>> recover from a hardware problem. >> >> It's usually disks that fail not contoller cards > > Usually. Why add a further level of complication by using a hardware > raid card. Totally unnecessary to use both, it's you who mentioned 'taking over' a raid array whatever that means. FWIW I've run hardware raid on lots of machines for at least ten years now and if you knew anything about the professional world you'd know no-one would consider software raid. > >> If you've going to do raid, raid 0 has no protection whatsoever! Very >> dangerous! > > RAID is not just for protection. That's its main function (as anyone knows) > >> I think you've missed the fact that I'm talking about bootable cds >> running >> linux and partition managers such as gparted (which ruins from run from >> their own bootable* cds )(in case_you_ miss that) > > I think you missed the fact that you asked why people bother using > LVM, one reason is reconfiguration while live, which I mentioned, > which you ignored and stated that it could "all" be done with > partitions. I point that out and you then say the above. It's > killfile time. Goodbye. I've been talking about bootable cds: it's prefectly obvious to the most ignorant idiot that to use them you have to boot from them. What's the great advantage it being able to do it whilst the machine is running it's normal operations, especially if it's just a workstation as the OP's is: none except it'll probably be slower and possibly more likely to fail. What rubbish again FOAD
From: alexd on 25 Jun 2008 14:17 On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:58:03 +0100, jasee wrote: > Yes, trying to talk sense to a fool is a waste of time You've certainly provided conclusive proof of that. *PLONK* -- <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx) 19:16:08 up 7 days, 18:57, 3 users, load average: 1.11, 1.05, 1.01 Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data
From: Nix on 28 Jun 2008 12:50
On 24 Jun 2008, Ian Rawlings verbalised: > LVM doesn't have a file system, it just creates block devices of a > size that you can change as you go along, even without dismounting the > filesystem if you're using XFS, or with ext3 you do need to dismount > the filesystem Not for some years now. Linux 2.6 has pretty much always been capable of doing online resizing. (Shrinking might sometimes require an unmount, I think, but that's a rare requirement anyway: disks and fses tend to grow, not shrink.) > As far as normal partitions are concerned, you can't move them around, > combine them and split them to suit without bringing the entire system > down so you can feck about with the partition table. Indeed. I wouldn't go back to non-LVM systems unless forced at gunpoint. The only non-boot partitions I've got are containers for md arrays which then have LVM PVs inside them. -- `If you are having a "ua luea luea le ua le" kind of day, I can only assume that you are doing no work due [to] incapacitating nausea caused by numerous lazy demons.' --- Frossie |