SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] LVM
- To: james <jam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] LVM
- From: Tony Sceats <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:17:31 +0800
- Cc: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KmgCwbB5Dyfrypm6KwAHrS0MRHrPHUtp1ORNKGVZp7I=; b=vVe9B2lTsVbEB9/wawpFLDFt8lDV8mlMPIle3KMwxKUBRot6k6IXQOz5nt2DaAPBK6 aqUfwfjPaAubSvcgQLHR4C+MdjRTiIPiEE2m/STl+um2ZcdhebW6Ml6gx2Z6BU5vChsl 2iWQD9oRDI8VtMNdTshnQzXbFOQVSa6Va19ws=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=FJ6HC2D8c1GBikeNVGHz3pTvGWj3r5FF5Jfo5NHjzl844hUE3Hh0qqLn5wfNfHeYZl qa8MWiLrjtsuK84HDpC1TKiTFuNjc4xdFbxUCVVaMtOU1ZdLHBSj+TYuYY5vY6LXQTMa fPh8ESBYnwEEwIBM9wR3AAtjOp6OOBbpp7dwY=
not really on topic, but a fun little site detailing some disk vibrating
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:10 PM, james <jam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 June 2010 12:15:52 you wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:14:38AM +0800, james wrote:
> > > The stuff below is interesting and a reference, but this highlights my
> > > favourite rant: Seagate's 'ATA more than an interface' says multiple
> > > disks in a machine *will* result in a higher failure rate, maybe much
> > > higher.
> > Due to heat, or what? That paper seems to concern itself primarily with
> > differences between PS (personal storage) drives and ES (enterprise
> > storage), in order to justify why the SCSI drives have so much higher
> > per bit.
> The bit that says:
> Disk#1 seeks knocking Disk#2, Disk#3 off track
> Disk#2 seeks knocking (mechanical coupling) Disk#1 off track
> Disk#1 seeks again
> my own experience is that n-disk arrays fail more than n times 1 disk
> but that is oh so subjective, and so subject to the ravages of stats.
> > The only mention I could see about multiple disks affecting failure rate
> > was "A high density server rack with many disc drives grouped close
> > together may experience much higher temperatures than a single drive
> > mounted in a desktop computer". Nothing about whether multiple disks in
> > machine affect failure rate for any reason other than high temperature
> > (which is usually controlled in server environments).
> > > So raid is a less worse option than LVM. Heed the advice in slug talks
> > > about backup (Sorry Sonia and Margurite, I don't remember who presented
> > > them)
> > Yes.
> > > It is possible, but not likely that *every* file on your disks is
> > > distributed over all 3 disks, so worst cast is that you lost 1/3 of
> > > file you have.
> > Only if the Logical Volume is defined with striping (the -i argument to
> > lvcreate).
> > Rule #1 is always ... make backups.
> > After that:
> > - RAID1 can reduce the impact of a single-drive failure
> > - RAID5 will increase the impact of failures
> > - When combining multiple disks into a large Volume Group (VG), it is
> > possible to create Logical Volumes within the VG so that they do not
> > physical devices. That way, if a disk dies (or 2, in a RAID1 setup) the
> > entire VG contents will not be lost, only those filesystems on the
> > devices. Hence it is a good idea to make multiple filesystems sized
> > according to need.
> > - Make multiple types of backups: backup to HDD (on a different server),
> > offsite backup, Internet backup, incremental backups, DVD backups,
> > external HDDs are dirt cheap these days.
> > - Separate data according to importance and increase the redundancy level
> > for the most important data. Data which is unimportant or can be
> > need not be backed up at all. Precious data might have multiple backups
> > onsite, offsite and write-once media.
> > Nick.
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html