Darrin Chandler wrote:

> Is the nv_raid info in your dmesg? Might be worth looking at...

Good point.  Sure enough it shows:

sata_nv version 0.6

followed by drive specs and a couple blocks like this:

nv_sata: Primary device added
nv_sata: Primary device removed
nv_sata: Secondary device added
nv_sata: Secondary device removed

followed by:
scsi0 : stat_nv
ata2: dev 0 ... //not sure what this is since ata2 is unused

scsi1 : sata_nv
   ...drive specs for the actual drives here...

Strangely it loads up scsi stuff even when I tell it not to.  Oh well, 
looks like more googling.

>> Maybe it's not worth goofing with the hardware RAID an just go for 
>> software RAID -- Linux can clearly do this. I would assume there is 
>> some performance penalty, but it probably doesn't matter -- this isn't 
>> for a high volume server or anything.
> 
> Since nobody else has come out and said it yet, I feel compelled: don't 
> think that raid will guarantee your uptime or your data. If it's 
> important enough to use raid, it's important enough to keep good 
> backups. 

No worries...this is just a new addition to my current backup system 
which uses rsync and occasional cd backups.  Of course there's also the 
everything important goes in CVS habit I have as well ;-) It turns out 
that I'll be devoting a portion of these drives as 'the backup' for 
several other drives.

> If it's important enough to use raid, learn how to use it. 
> Break the mirror. Rebuild the mirror with 1 good disk and 1 blank one. 
> Experiment and learn how to recover and make notes now, while you have 
> the chance.

Point taken -- seems like the majority of backup strategies I've 
encountered over the years wind up not working at all when it comes time 
to restore.

Jeff

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss