| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> What do you guys, gals too, think about this? Just add a drive or buy a |
| 4 |
> larger drive and move things over? Or is this a six of one and half |
| 5 |
> dozen of the other thing? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Generally I buy drives at the sweet spot in cost/capacity, so that is |
| 9 |
about 3TB last time I checked (for spinning disks). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I ALWAYS use RAID or full backups of some kind. RAID isn't really a |
| 12 |
substitute for backups, but I use it as such for low-priority data |
| 13 |
such as mythtv recordings or re-generatable data. Right now I'm |
| 14 |
running on mirrored btrfs with a full backup to ext4 (since btrfs is |
| 15 |
living dangerously). I'm actually getting tight on space and debating |
| 16 |
dropping the full backups for lower-priority data, which would free up |
| 17 |
a 3TB drive to add to the btrfs array. Long-term I'd prefer to move |
| 18 |
to raid5 which is much more efficient, but I wouldn't recommend doing |
| 19 |
that on btrfs yet - it is very immature. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
raid5 on mdadm and lvm with ext4 is very mature, and is probably your |
| 22 |
most space-efficient option with some level of redundancy. With large |
| 23 |
arrays having raid6 isn't a bad idea these days - it takes a lot of |
| 24 |
time to recover a failure. However, if you have a single drive today |
| 25 |
there is no way to add only a single disk and get both more space and |
| 26 |
redundancy at the same time. If you want more space and only want to |
| 27 |
buy one drive, then you're stuck with just simple lvm and if a drive |
| 28 |
fails you're going to lose a lot of stuff. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives