Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 15:45:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: PVinci@ix.netcom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: large filesystems/multiple disks [RAID] Message-ID: <199504032045.PAA15782@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <9504031714.AA07097@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Apr 3, 95 11:14:36 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have a disk. > I am cheap. > I fill up a partition on the disk. > Being cheap, I back everything off, repartition, and restore. > Eventually, all partitions on the disk are full. > I break down and buy another drive. > I add pieces of the drive to my full partitions: > o 100M to /home > o 8M to swap > o 70M to /usr You only have two drives. Why would you span? I wouldn't. I'd do this: Make a new, bigger /home on the new drive. Move home over. Use the old /home to increase the size of /usr. Add a new swap partition. Now you have the same sized partitions as you did with striping, without the risks. The only reason I can see for having multiple partitions on the same striped drives is stupidity. Your scenario above is an example. > Spanning is simply a tools for easing the administrative burden; Sounds like you added to it. You had to set up the drives spanned, and do a tape restore of every file system. I only had to do a tape restore of /usr... I copied /home right over. > Now it has grown, but I am on a research grant, and thus on a limited > bugdet. > So I can't run out and buy a 4G drive as a replacement. > So I buy a 2G drive and "add" it to my HGP database partition. That's fine. But now you're not running multiple partitions over the two drives. If possible, what I'd do would be to use the 2GB for the file systems and give the database the whole 3GB one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504032045.PAA15782>