I'm going through the motions of planning a largish network file server
for personnel use here, and pondering on the reliability of disks. Is
there any advantage in having disks mounted as read-only once they are
crammed to capacity with data (write-once, read-often)? Will this
prolong disk life? Or is it clutching at straws in the face of Some
Other Solution(tm)? My main motivation behind this idea is that the data
is for the most part replacable - I still have the DVDs and CDs that
provide the data should a disk die (although I'd have to go through the
ripping process all over again). Are they likely to have a longer / less
troubled life if they are read-only? I guess the whole plan comes apart
if theres a power-loss while disk reading is occurring (platters
spinning and heads seeking)?
It'll be running some form of Linux if that counts :)
All opinions welcomed
Lee
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!