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
(text/plain)