| From: Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us>
| On 04/28/2014 10:44 AM, Javier Perez wrote:
| >
| > Is there anything I should know I am not taking into consideration?
|
| Putting your OS onto a 10 GB partition on that drive will take up about 0.5%
| of its capacity. It will also be much safer than having it on an external
| drive, especially if it's a flash drive.
I agree.
I always reserve two partitions to be /: one for the current system,
and one for the next system. That way I can install a new system
without losing the old one. Seems much safer to me. Oh, and I
allocate 20G per / to account for future code-bloat. Surely overkill
on a server.
I don't really know RAID best-practices these days.
Big disks are so big that there is a real chance of losing a working
drive while rebuilding a degraded array. And manufacturers of
consumer drives try to make them NOT work in RAID so as to force
business folks to buy more expensive drives (google for TLER).
When a disk fails, the array becomes degraded. The redundancy is gone.
The first thing to do: replace the bad disk and rebuild the array. Or
try to rebuild with the old drive (the error might be transient).
Rebuilding can take a large fraction of a day with 3T disks.
During that time, a second failure kills you: no redundancy.
The fundamental problem is the flawed belief that RAID is a kind of
backup. When you get down to it, it isn't backup.
So ask yourself: in a home server, just what does RAID give me? Are
you really bottlenecked for speed in a way that RAID will improve?
Perhaps RAID can help with High Availability (and perhaps not) -- is
that what you are hoping for? Just don't think of it as backup.