From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mads Peter Bach Subject: Re: Converting existing Data to RAID5 Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 19:46:13 +0200 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3EB2AEE5.10803@hum.auc.dk> References: <20030502172613.GA20267@moof.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20030502172613.GA20267@moof.org.uk> To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Giles A. Radford wrote: > Now, Having read back on this list the stock answer to "I want to > expand my RAID5 array" seems to be (at the moment) "Use raidreconf, > but at your own risk, and it'll take ages". I don't have a problem wi= th > the "ages" bit, but I'd like to be as datasafe as possible. > Could I start up a Raid 5 array with one or two real disks and three > or four faulty drives which I would then activate as and when copying > from them onto the new array has finished? No, sorry, that wouldn't work. You can have one one drive missing. raid= reconf=20 is probably your best bet. > On a slightly similar note, I'm used to using ext2 and ext3, but I've > heard a lot of people talk positively about XFS recently, so I'm > wondering if any of you have any opinions on whether I should use ext= 3 > or XFS for this new array? Depends on your application. I quite fond of XFS in my fileservers, but= it has=20 the added hassle of requiring patches to the standard kernel, unless yo= u use a=20 distro with XFS support, but they tend to lag a bit behind. --=20 Mads Peter Bach Systemadministrator, Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet Kroghstr=E6de 3 - 5.111, DK-9220 Aalborg =D8st - (+45) 96358062 # whois MPB1-DK@whois.dk-hostmaster.dk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html