On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Conor Wynne wrote:
> Yes, this would be my preference. Re-installing the root fs is trivial if
> you backup the right stuff in the first place.
For the relatively small amount of disk space involved, would it not make
sense to have root on a 5-10GB RAID1 array so that a single disk loss
doesn't cause you to need to reinstall and use the backups?
It's less than 1% of the disk space.
> I tend to raid only what is necessary. If the rootfs disk or partition
> became unusable, you could still access you data with a livecd or a rescue
> cd. All that is important is you data and potentially configs.
Personally, I'd consider time and (to a lesser degree) reliability as
important quantities. Sure the data's still there but wouldn't it be nicer
if the machine just kept going and suggested you replace a dead disk,
rather than having to boot a livecd and/or reinstall, stitch the raid array
back together, etc? Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth from other
users if this goes down?
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!