Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mst 698 days ago
The usual reason I've seen RAID 1 used for the OS drive is -so- it still boots if it loses one.

Not doing so is especially upsetting when you discover you forgot to flip the setting only when a drive fails with the machine in question several hours' drive away (standalone remote servers like that tend not to have console access).

I think 'refusing to boot' is probably the right default for a workstation, but on the whole I think I'd prefer that to be a default set by the workstation distro installer rather than the filesystem.
1 comments
viraptor 698 days ago
That sounds like the right default then. If you're doing a home install, you get that extra little bit of protection. If you're doing a professional remote server deployment, you should be a responsible adult understanding the choices - and run with scrubbing, smart and monitoring for failures.
link
mst 697 days ago
"Will my RAID configuration designed so my system can still boot even if it loses a drive not actually let it still boot if it loses a drive?" is not a question that I think is fair to expect sysadmins to realise they need to ask.

Complete Principle of Least Surprise violation given everything else's (that I'm aware of) RAID1 setups will still boot fine.

Also said monitoring should then notify you of an unexpected reboot and/or a dropped out disk, which you can then remediate in a planned fashion.

If this was a new concept then defaulting all the safety knobs to max would seem pretty reasonable to me, but it's an established concept with established uses and expectations - a server distro's installer should not be defaulting to 'cause an unnecessary outage and require unplanned physical maintenance to remediate it.'

link