2 Aug 2007 01:45
2 Aug 2007 02:26
Re: raid question
Evan Hisey <ehisey <at> gmail.com>
2007-08-02 00:26:40 GMT
2007-08-02 00:26:40 GMT
po- It can be done but it is kind of an odd setup. The best one is a raid 0 configuration.I think anything else is going to get to complicated. Evan On 8/1/07, PO <x75 <at> shaw.ca> wrote: > Hi all! > > Anyone ever tried to raid two external hard drives through usb or > firewire? Can it be done? > > Any thoughts on this? > > Thanks. > > po > > > _______________________________________________ > slackware mailing list > slackware <at> mailman.lug.org.uk > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/slackware >
2 Aug 2007 10:19
Re: raid question
Marcel Lauhoff <mlauhoff <at> gmail.com>
2007-08-02 08:19:05 GMT
2007-08-02 08:19:05 GMT
Hi On 8/2/07, PO <x75 <at> shaw.ca> wrote: > Anyone ever tried to raid two external hard drives through usb or > firewire? Can it be done? Of course can it be done. You can use the linux software raid capabilities on any block device. I use two external usb disks with both 200G in a raid 1. On top of that I use LVM and on top of that dm-crypt/luks. So far I works ok for me. On high io my usb mouse sometimes gets a little slow, but thats not so bad. Disk speed is about 20M/sec.
2 Aug 2007 13:53
Re: raid question
PO <x75 <at> shaw.ca>
2007-08-02 11:53:57 GMT
2007-08-02 11:53:57 GMT
Marcel Lauhoff wrote: > Hi > > On 8/2/07, PO <x75 <at> shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> Anyone ever tried to raid two external hard drives through usb or >> firewire? Can it be done? >> > Of course can it be done. You can use the linux software raid > capabilities on any block device. > It's been a few years since I used the software raid setup, but I remember that it works perfectly. > I use two external usb disks with both 200G in a raid 1. On top of > that I use LVM and on top of that dm-crypt/luks. > Yes! That's the target setup I was thinking of. Well, more like 2 500 G usb2 drives under a raid 0 setup with a form of loopback encryption.... > So far I works ok for me. On high io my usb mouse sometimes gets a > little slow, but thats not so bad. Disk speed is about 20M/sec. > Thanks so much, this is going to be fun! I'll get on this quick as I can. po
3 Aug 2007 05:22
Re: raid question
Andy Smith <andy <at> lug.org.uk>
2007-08-03 03:22:53 GMT
2007-08-03 03:22:53 GMT
Hi, On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 04:53:57AM -0700, PO wrote: > Marcel Lauhoff wrote: > >I use two external usb disks with both 200G in a raid 1. On top of > >that I use LVM and on top of that dm-crypt/luks. > > > Yes! That's the target setup I was thinking of. Well, more like 2 500 G > usb2 drives under a raid 0 setup with a form of loopback encryption.... I wouldn't recommend using RAID-0 unless the data is low value. Two disks have twice the failure rate of one disk, and when you lose one you lose all your data. > >So far I works ok for me. On high io my usb mouse sometimes gets a > >little slow, but thats not so bad. Disk speed is about 20M/sec. > > > Thanks so much, this is going to be fun! I'll get on this quick as I can. Not so relevant for your intended use, but if one is intending to use a USB hard drive in RAID-1 with an internal hard drive, one can configure the external drive to be "write mostly" so that all reads are directed only to the internal, which will free up a bit of USB bus bandwidth. The purpose of that option is for things like that where parts of the mirror may be on disproportionately slow buses, like USB disks and network block devices. Cheers,(Continue reading)
3 Aug 2007 18:18
Re: raid question
Gwenhwyfaer <gwenhwyfaer <at> gmail.com>
2007-08-03 16:18:17 GMT
2007-08-03 16:18:17 GMT
On 03/08/07, Andy Smith <andy <at> lug.org.uk> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 04:53:57AM -0700, PO wrote:
> Yes! That's the target setup I was thinking of. Well, more like 2 500 G
> usb2 drives under a raid 0 setup with a form of loopback encryption....
I wouldn't recommend using RAID-0 unless the data is low value. Two
disks have twice the failure rate of one disk, and when you lose one
you lose all your data.
Isn't the picture even worse than that? Sure, two disks have twice the failure rate of one disk when used independently; but in a RAID-0 array, wouldn't they create a cumulative drive whose failure rate is actually the product of its individual drives', rather than the sum? Not to mention that disks from the same batch tend to fail at the same time...
My personal feeling about RAID-0 is that if you've got little enough data that you can easily back it up, or if it changes slowly enough that those backups are always complete, you don't need it anyway.
Regards
Gwenhwyfaer
_______________________________________________ slackware mailing list slackware <at> mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/slackware
4 Aug 2007 14:48
building packages, checkinstall substitute
markus reichelt <ml <at> mareichelt.de>
2007-08-04 12:48:23 GMT
2007-08-04 12:48:23 GMT
Hi, since checkinstall borks on Slackware 12 I'm looking for a decent substitute. I liked checkinstall's simplicity. Which tool can you recommend for building packages (or point to some good howto, respectively)? -- -- left blank, right bald
_______________________________________________ slackware mailing list slackware <at> mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/slackware
4 Aug 2007 14:59
Re: building packages, checkinstall substitute
Willy Sudiarto Raharjo <willysr <at> gmail.com>
2007-08-04 12:59:11 GMT
2007-08-04 12:59:11 GMT
> since checkinstall borks on Slackware 12 I'm looking for a decent > substitute. I liked checkinstall's simplicity. > > Which tool can you recommend for building packages (or point to some > good howto, respectively)? Slackbuilds? It's the same method that was being used by Pat itself :D Check http://slackbuilds.org/ for more repositories -- -- Willy Sudiarto Raharjo Registered Linux User : 336579 Web : http://www.informatix.or.id/willy Blog : http://willysr.blogspot.com http://slackblogs.blogspot.com
4 Aug 2007 15:21
Re: building packages, checkinstall substitute
markus reichelt <ml <at> mareichelt.de>
2007-08-04 13:21:12 GMT
2007-08-04 13:21:12 GMT
* Willy Sudiarto Raharjo <willysr <at> gmail.com> wrote: > > since checkinstall borks on Slackware 12 I'm looking for a decent > > substitute. I liked checkinstall's simplicity. > > > > Which tool can you recommend for building packages (or point to some > > good howto, respectively)? > > Slackbuilds? No way: "It will take [...] about fifteen minutes to create each package (actual compile process not included), but the time you save in the future (you want to create a newer version of the package) makes the initial time expenditure worth it." It simply is overkill for my setup. That's why I mentioned the magic word "simplicity"-- -- left blank, right bald
_______________________________________________ slackware mailing list slackware <at> mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/slackware
4 Aug 2007 15:28
Re: building packages, checkinstall substitute
markus reichelt <ml <at> mareichelt.de>
2007-08-04 13:28:05 GMT
2007-08-04 13:28:05 GMT
* markus reichelt <ml <at> mareichelt.de> wrote: > It simply is overkill for my setup. That's why I mentioned the magic > word "simplicity"I just found out that it's being worked on, finally, and there's a workaround for checkinstall: http://checkinstall.izto.org/cklist/msg00319.html -- -- left blank, right bald
_______________________________________________ slackware mailing list slackware <at> mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/slackware
RSS Feed