<DIV>Hi, Dave</DIV> <DIV>Sounds like a really nice setup your planning! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Beware though that if the drives are not in a redundant configuration. (i.e. hardware raid 1/5) that adding drives together in a linear fashion will increase the likelihood of data-loss as it'll only take one out of the group of drives to fail to cause potential data loss". </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yea, this would be a weakness in the system, so one would have to be very careful. As you said you do have a second channel available, could you set up a dual setup, and mirror the raid might solve the problem? Or would it be easier to mirror to another system over the network. Like running dual servers, ie: main and backup, but If this is a home based system then it is all inane.</DIV> <DIV><BR>The box I have to work with will allow me to run a ATA 133 to serial drive raid system, MSI board you see. For now I was only planning to leave in the 120gig, but add
a DVD
-/+ RW Duel layer, and two to three more 120gig or larger drives. Or as you state more then two HDD do slow performance, so I just could leave in the CD-RW. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I did a bit of figuring with pen and paper to plan out how to allocate drive space to each partition, and I ended up with this layout.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> /boot 100megs, / 10gigs, /usr 25gigs, /usr/local 25gigs, /var 10gigs, /home 20gigs, /tmp 10gigs, /opt 10gigs, and /scratch 10gigs. How does that sound for starters?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You where talking about SCSI, so that subject I was thinking of how to get my IBM Intellistation up and running. I'm looking into SCSI for it, but really don't know where to start. I would need a card, have a 68pin cable to work with and have room for three drives. I would like to go with 50 to 150gig drives if possible, any suggestion? I was planning on using the CD-RW on IDE channel
2 as
master. </DIV> <DIV>Say any idea if that SCSI to IDE bridge would work with IDE optical drives, rather than connecting it through the IDE controller.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks, Ron Maggio<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Dave Andruczyk <djandruczyk@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>--- Ron Maggio <RONMAGGIO2005@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>> Hi, Dave<BR>> Thanks for all your advice.<BR>> <BR>> So your going to add HDD's later on down the road, and from what your<BR>> saying is that LVM will let you add them on and divide them up on the fly. So<BR>> by doing so you can add partitions, and from what I've read about using LVM<BR>> one can move (resizing partitions) them around without destroying data. So if<BR>> I'm correct one can do partition extensions, similar to NT's volume striping<BR>> to increase partition space? Li
nux has
come a long way!<BR>> <BR><BR>Yes, what I'm planning on is picking up at least one Samsung Spinpoint P series<BR>250GB drive (about $100.00 from newegg.com) and a SCSI to IDE bridge to allow<BR>me to run it on my U160 SCSI bus (I don't care for IDE interfaces as if you run<BR>more than one drive per channel performance goes to hell) Since I still have<BR>about 12 ID's free on the SCSI bus I could add a couple more before being BW<BR>limited on the SCSI bus, as this drive can't push more than about<BR>35-40MB/second. theoretically I could have 4 of these on the SCSI bus running<BR>in a RAID5 configuration and just nearly saturate that SCSI channel. (though I<BR>have a second channel available) whereas I'd need four independant IDE<BR>channels to do the same thing, and I wouldn't have the advantages of command<BR>queuing that SCSI gives me (the SCSI/IDE bridge does TCQ, Tagged command<BR>Queuing)<BR><BR>Once this drive is in, it'll have a static /boot partition and the rest
will
be<BR>LVM'd and split up as needed. if I add another drive, I can just LVM extend the<BR>volume group to encompase both drives and now more space is available to extent<BR>ANY partition on the LVM group. the LVM core takes care of whereto put the<BR>data. Beware though that if hte drives are not in a redundant configuration.<BR>(i.e. hardware raid 1/5) that adding drives together in a linear fashion will<BR>increase the likelihood of dataloss as it'll only take one out of the group of<BR>drives to fail to cause potential data loss..<BR><BR><BR>Dave J. Andruczyk<BR><BR><BR><BR>__________________________________ <BR>Yahoo! Music Unlimited <BR>Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. <BR>http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>nflug mailing list<BR>nflug@nflug.org<BR>http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug<BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR></DIV><p>
<hr size=1> <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/">Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.</a>