| 1 |
On Sunday 14 December 2008 12:47:14 Florian Philipp wrote: |
| 2 |
> Then I would use it (and the older disk) in an LVM volume group. LVM |
| 3 |
> also supports mirroring (like RAID1) and striping (like RAID0) on a |
| 4 |
> per-volume basis. That means that you could keep most of your data |
| 5 |
> somewhere on the TB disk and still experiment with mirroring and |
| 6 |
> striping using both disks for partitions which need more speed or more |
| 7 |
> security. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
LVM's support for mirroring and striping is exceptionally crude to say the |
| 10 |
least. You will also have problems if your stripes do not align with the |
| 11 |
underlying volume. Seeing as LVM is designed to make volume management easier |
| 12 |
and RAID is designed to provide redundancy, it is best to completely dispense |
| 13 |
with the mirror/stripe "features" of LVM and leave that to the thing that |
| 14 |
does it best - RAID - while letting LVM do what it does best - making your |
| 15 |
life infinitely easier with volume management. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Plus, most built-in so-called hardware RAID solutions are utter crap and |
| 18 |
nothing worth the silicon they are built on. Linux software raid is many |
| 19 |
times better. Rule of thumb is that if the OS can see the underlying volumes |
| 20 |
that make up the RAID, you do not have real hardware RAID. You instead have |
| 21 |
something else that a marketing person decided would be cute if it were |
| 22 |
called hardware RAID. Calling a duck a swan does not make it anything other |
| 23 |
than a duck ;-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives