From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 6 08:44:41 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id IAA29930 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 08:44:41 -0700 Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA29924 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 08:44:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199504061544.IAA29924@freefall.cdrom.com> Received: by crh.cl.msu.edu (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15333; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:44:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:44:37 -0400 From: Charles Henrich To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: large filesystems/multiple disks [RAID] X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #10 (NOV) Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> But, again, the risk is increased by the spanning, which was the point >> of the post... that spanning is nearly useless without additional >> support changes to increase reliability. >How about disk mirroring ? If you have a _mirrored_ database on two 2G >disks and then add 2x2G (or may be 1x4G) and get spanned mirrored database. >You get reliability due to mirroring and easy expansion due to spanning. That would be most entirely useful. These days with disk prices being what they are, mirroring is cheaper than a true RAID solution (heck of alot faster too :) -Crh -- Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/