search for: swraid

I'd agree with you John. I'm trying to get away from Amanda's unpredictability and go back to using scripts to drive dump (for ext2/3/4) and xfsdump (for xfs). Is there any easy way to tell rear to include xfsdump and dump capability? If the commands are there then its trivial to restore data. What I've done in the past is before the nightly backup write a small file to the

...giving disk geometries.? You can > then use any recovery DVD to partition and reload the OS.? If rear can > do this for me it would be __much__ neater! According to rear webpage: https://relax-and-recover.org/about/ Extensive disk layout implementation, incl. * HWRAID (HP SmartArray) * SWRAID * LVM * multipathing * DRBD * iSCSI * LUKS (encrypted partitions and filesystems) I personally used rear to restore lvm volume groups and several logical volumes with success. I will test a more complicated layout until the end of this year and can let you know about the findings. Rega...

With Centos3, fedora1/2 I have been able to put /boot on a RAID1 partition and have it boot normally. Unlike earlier versions that used lilo as the default boot loader, these did not make the 2nd drive bootable but at least I was fairly confident that if the first drive failed I could use the install CD in rescue mode to fix up the 2nd one and go on. However, Centos4 won't boot at all with

I have been trying to install CentOS 4.3 on an HP DL360 G3 (with dual Xeon 3.2 GHz, a Smart Array 5i, and two 36 GB disks doing RAID 1 mirroring). I''m doing all defaults (including the disk and LVM setup) and using the "Minimal" checkbox at the bottom of the Custom machine type package selection screen, so it''s a very "vanilla" install. It zips through the

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS...

I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days, and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I''m not afraid of ext4''s newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for years. So a-benchmarking I went. Results at the bottom: