| 1 |
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:38 PM, <thegeezer@×××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> if you had lvm already you could |
| 3 |
> simply 'move' then 'enlarge' your existing stuff (tm) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Yup - if you're not running btrfs/zfs you probably should be running |
| 6 |
lvm. One thing I would do is backup your lvm metadata when it changes |
| 7 |
- I once got burned by an lvm error of some kind and an fsck scrambled |
| 8 |
the living daylights out of my disk (an fsck on one ext3 partition |
| 9 |
scrambled a different partition). That is pretty rare though (but I |
| 10 |
did find one or two mentions online of similar situations. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> : i'd like to know how |
| 13 |
> btrfs would do the same for anyone who can let me know. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
A btrfs filesystem pools storage. You can add devices to the pool, |
| 16 |
and remove devices to the pool. If you remove a device with data on |
| 17 |
it the data will get moved. When adding devices btrfs does not |
| 18 |
automatically shuffle data around - you can issue a balance command to |
| 19 |
do so, but I wouldn't do this until you're done adding/removing |
| 20 |
drives. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
A nice thing about btrfs is that devices do not have to be of the same |
| 23 |
size and it generally does the right thing. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The downside of btrfs right now for raid is that raid5/6 are still |
| 26 |
very experimental. They will support reshaping though, which is one |
| 27 |
of the reasons I've stayed away from zfs. Zfs also lets you |
| 28 |
add/remove devices from a pool, but it does not allow you to reshape a |
| 29 |
raid. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives