| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Thanks for the info everyone, but do you understand the agony I am now |
| 5 |
>> suffering at the fact that all disk in my system (including all parts |
| 6 |
>> of my RAID5) are starting on sector 63 and I don't have sufficient |
| 7 |
>> free space (or free time) to repartition them? :) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> With the RAID, you could fail one disk, repartition, re-add it, rinse and |
| 10 |
> repeat. But that doesn't take care of the time issue. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I will admit that if a drive fails I will have to google for the |
| 13 |
instructions to proceed from there. When I first set it up, I read the |
| 14 |
info, but since I never had to use it I've completely forgotten the |
| 15 |
specifics. And in hindsight I should have labeled the disks so I know |
| 16 |
more easily which one failed (when one fails). Next time, I'll do it |
| 17 |
right. :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> I am really curious |
| 20 |
>> if there are any gains to be made on my own system... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Me too, so post back after you've done it ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I have a dmcrypt on top of the (software) RAID5, so speed is not so |
| 25 |
much of an issue in this case, but reducing physical wear & tear on |
| 26 |
the disks would always be a good thing. Maybe someday if I am brave I |
| 27 |
will try it... but probably not until I made a full backup, just in |
| 28 |
case. |
Archives