1 |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:13:41 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > An alternative is to create a new volume group on the new disk and |
4 |
> > mounts PVs at various points in your home directory. That way you get |
5 |
> > the extra space and much of the flexibility without the risk of a |
6 |
> > failure on a single drive taking out data on both. However, if you |
7 |
> > are concerned about data loss, you should be using RAID at a minimum, |
8 |
> > preferably with an error detecting filesystem. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I've used that scheme myself in the past. You do get the increased space |
11 |
> but you don't get much in the way of flexibility. And it get COMPLICATED |
12 |
> really quickly. |
13 |
|
14 |
It certainly can, but for a simple two drive home system it shouldn't get |
15 |
out of hand. However, it does avoid the "one disk errors kills two |
16 |
disks' data" problem. |
17 |
|
18 |
> To get around the situation of one drive almost full and the other |
19 |
> having lots of space, folks often use symlinked directories, which you |
20 |
> forget about and no-one else can figure out what you did... |
21 |
|
22 |
I wasn't suggesting symlinks, just LVs mounted at appropriate points. It |
23 |
rather depends on the spread of Dale's data. If he just needs extra space |
24 |
for his videos, he could get a new drive and mount it at ~/videos. |
25 |
|
26 |
> It all smacks of the old saw: |
27 |
> |
28 |
> For any non-trivial problem, there is always at least one solution that |
29 |
> is simple, elegant, and wrong. |
30 |
|
31 |
:-) |
32 |
|
33 |
I consider what I suggested somewhat simple but far from elegant. Often |
34 |
though, it's a lot less work in the long run to go for the initially more |
35 |
complex solution. If Dale is worried about the likelihood of disk |
36 |
failure, he really should be using RAID - either MDRAID under LVM or one |
37 |
of the next-gen filesystems. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Neil Bothwick |
42 |
|
43 |
... Taglines: and How They Affect Women. Next On Oprah. |