From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keld =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Simonsen Subject: Re: In this partition scheme, grub does not find md information? Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:04:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20080129140412.GC30679@rap.rap.dk> References: <479EAF42.6010604@pobox.com> <18334.46306.611615.493031@notabene.brown> <479F07E1.7060408@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <479F07E1.7060408@pobox.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Moshe Yudkowsky Cc: Neil Brown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:02:57AM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote: > Neil, thanks for writing. A couple of follow-up questions to you and the > group: > > If the answers above don't lead to a resolution, I can create two RAID1 > pairs and join them using LVM. I would take a hit by using LVM to tie > the pairs intead of RAID0, I suppose, but I would avoid the performance > hit of multiple md drives on a single physical drive, and I could even > run a hot spare through a sparing group. Any comments on the performance > hit -- is raid1L a really bad idea for some reason? You can of cause construct a traditional raid-1+0 in Linux as you describe here, but this is different from linux raid10 (with its different layout possibilities). And constructing two grub/lilos on two disks for a raid1 on /boot seems to be the right way for a reasonably secured system. best regards keld