Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:17:23 -0400 From: Vulpes Velox <v.velox@vvelox.net> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Subject: Re: Filesystems larger than 2TB? Message-ID: <20070611001723.5956b21c@vixen42> In-Reply-To: <cone.1181530914.692841.13436.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <cone.1181435058.668170.9868.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> <f4gttm$t35$2@sea.gmane.org> <cone.1181484821.884802.9541.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> <20070610142832.11ecfaff@vixen42> <cone.1181530914.692841.13436.1000@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:01:54 -0400 Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> wrote: > Zane C.B. writes: > > > In such a situation, I would seperate the data drives and the OS > > drives, instead of having them in one big raid. This makes it a > > lot more manageable. > > Ok. Let me see if I understand. > So I could take say 2 drives and make it raid 1. T > hen make another raid with the rest of the drives and I would then > newfs -s the raw partition? > > I also think 3ware controllers allow to take part of a raid display > it separately, but still only have one raid. Will check before I do > my next "large" machine. Yeah, something along those lines. I've found it really makes things nicer in the long run. That way you can easily move the data drives around seperate of OS. It makes upgrading a lot smoother process as well.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070611001723.5956b21c>