Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I just thought of a raid configuration that might make a lot of sense for desktop PCs.
You have 2 similar hard drives, and you want your software to load fast, but your important data to be redundant. Why not split each drive into two partitions, and run raid 0 on the first partitions for /, and run raid 1 on the second partitions for /home. (actually we'd also have a swap partition on each drive as well allowing the kernel to do the striping, and maybe some other partitions for /boot, etc.)
The key advantage of this approach is giving redundancy to /home and extra speed to everything else with minimal hardware cost. With this goal in mind, is there a different approach that would be more effective?
Here are some obvious remarks:
Why not just add a 3rd disk and run raid-5?
If you want to spend more money for a 3rd disk that is nice, but I also hear more stories about problems with raid-5 and rebuilding arrays and performance issues, raid0 and raid1 are nice and simple.
Why not just get 4 disks and run raid0+1?
If cost is not an object that works great, but that is overkill for most desktop computers.
Why not just buy a WD Raptor or another high-reliability, high-speed drive? This is probably the most practical alternative, but too easy for linux geeks.
I've done a bit of searching, and can't find anybody talking about using a configuration like this. I'm not sure what the performance would be like with the heads having to go back and forth between the two partitions, but is there an obvious reason this is completely stupid? I do not have much experience with raid and would love to get some comments from raid experts on this topic. Which mailing list might be better to submit this question to? (linux-raid seems to be overcome with spam)