On 02/02/11 10:18, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
> hmm yes but still it's not very efficient use of disk space. I'm going
> to solve my problem by using lvm and doing a raid0 of all the disks. I
> do have a rather low upper limit of storage usage that will mean I will
> only have a handfull of disks anyway. 

That would be very, very, very unwise.  With a RAID0 of N disks, you
have zero redundancy, you are N times more likely to suffer a drive
failure on the array than you are with a single disk, and a failure of
any drive in the array WILL destroy all of the data on the array.

At the very least, consider RAID5.  It will be slower, but you'll be
able to survive a single disk failure with a high probability[1] of no
data loss.


[1] Even RAID5/RAID6 has weaknesses.  If you're interested, do a search
for "RAID5 write hole".

-- 
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric AT caerllewys DOT net   alaric AT metrocast DOT net   phil AT 
co.ordinate DOT org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)!
Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free!
Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires 
February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users