[mythtv-users] HELP! I want my mythtv!

[Hika van den Hoven]

Hoi Hika,

Sunday, April 13, 2014, 4:26:51 PM, you wrote:

> Hoi Joseph,

> Sunday, April 13, 2014, 4:19:39 PM, you wrote:

>> On 04/13/2014 05:39 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
>>> Hika van den Hoven <hikavdh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had ones a fake failure on one of my raid1 arrays. Checking the
>>>> drive showed nothing and after re-adding it is still running for more
>>>> then a year.
>>> I have a system at work like that - an old Dell rackmount server with SCSI drives. Every now and then it'll spit it's dummy out and declare one or more drives as failed. Then I have the fun of forcing the arrays back together again and it'll run fine for ${random_long_period}.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joseph DeGraw <coffee412 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I got the new drive in and reconstructed a new raid and things are now running good.
>>> You're actually better off not using RAID for this application, both for performance and for resilience.
>>>
>>> Performance wise, you are better off with two separate drives. Add both into Myth and it will load-share between them.
>>> Resiliency wise, as you've found, a striped set will lose you all your data when any drive in the array fails. Keep them as separate drives and you only lose the data on that drive.
>>>
>>>> Well, I think the point that did apply to my situation is that when you have a failing raid that is not part of the actual operating system (i.e. its a data array only) the operating system should still be able to boot with a failed raid. Not being able to boot the operating system puts you in a bad situation in that you have to jump thru alot more hoops to get things fixed.
>>> It should be possible to fix it from the Busybox prompt - it'll just be harder to do. The point of dropping to the Busybox prompt is to give you at least some basic tools with which to fix the system - which is better than most other systems I've used which "just fail" and leave you with nothing (not fun when it's a system the whole company relies on !) From there, you should be able to mount your root volume (even if not as /) and get access to the various tools you need. Sometimes, speaking from experience, it's just a matter of fscking a filesystem that needs a little fixing more than the automatic flags will do at boot time.
>>>
>>>
>> Good point. I didnt realize that. Storage groups are a good thing. Now I
>> know why they are setup like they are.

>> Probably today I will break up the raid into separate disks.

>> My wife is pretty pissed at me right now. I lost all her soaps and LMN
>> movies. :(

>> Not a good day for me!

>> Joseph

> Do you really need 4Tb for recordings? You could consider putting them
> in raid1. That way a drive failure won't cost you your data. With
> raid1 reading is faster since it is spread over the two drives.
> I have never had speed issues with my raid1 array.

Your wife will be happy with the added data security! ;)

Tot mails,
  Hika                            mailto:hikavdh at gmail.com

"Zonder hoop kun je niet leven
Zonder leven is er geen hoop
Het eeuwige dilemma
Zeker als je hoop moet vernietigen om te kunnen overleven!"

De lerende Mens