From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nix Subject: Re: Multiple raids on one machine? Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:08:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87odwefun8.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> References: <449F100D.6030509@cjx.com> <871wtahqgo.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <44A117A3.5040203@cjx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <44A117A3.5040203@cjx.com> (Chris Allen's message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:33:55 +0100") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Allen Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Chris Allen wondered: > Nix wrote: >> There is a third alternative which can be useful if you have a mess of >> drives of widely-differing capacities: make several RAID arrays so as to tesselate >> space across all the drives, and then pile an LVM on the top of all of them to >> fuse them back into one again. > > But won't I be stuck with the same problem? ie I'll have a single 12TB > lvm, and won't be able to use EXT3 on it? Not without ext3 patches (until the very-large-ext3 patches now pending on l-k go in), sure. But because it's LVMed you could cut it into a couple of exg3 filesystems easily. (I find it hard to imagine a single *directory* whose children contain 12Tb of files in a form that you can't cut into pieces with suitable use of bind mounts, but still, perhaps such exists.) -- `NB: Anyone suggesting that we should say "Tibibytes" instead of Terabytes there will be hunted down and brutally slain. That is all.' --- Matthew Wilcox