I agree that we were lucky; we did not design the system to run crippled - I just thought that it was cool that it did :) Do not get me wrong, I do not have anything against Windows...I just really do not think it would have died so chivalrously.
I agree with you that the OS should be on the RAID array. This was one of the lessons learned from this event. Make sure you learn the lesson right. You could use Raid for the OS but not
On Sunday 29 April 2007 22:08, Tal Cohen wrote: the same raid. Personally I am more of a hot spare os drive myself, but if you want to use RAID you don't want to be at the mercy of the OS installer Ms, Linux, or otherwise to keep your data safe in the case of an upgrade or reinstall. My philosophy is to keep the OS and data physcailly seperate for ciritical data. Just my 2 cents Thanks Brian
Tal
-----Original Message----- From: wlug-bounces@mail.wlug.org [mailto:wlug-bounces@mail.wlug.org] On Behalf Of John Stoffel Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:07 PM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] I'd like to see Windows do this....
Tal> It was just the OS, not the data disk (the data disk is a 3 disk Tal> Raid 5 array).
Again, If you've bothered to use RAID on your data, why not on the OS as well? It's not like the OS is all that big space wise, so it's cheap to mirror.
And not always will the system (unix or otherwise) fail so nicely. You were lucky in my book. :]
John _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug@mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug
_______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug@mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug