RAID-5 expansion / harddisk replacement (with bigger disks) without total data-loss
jason at rtfmconsult.com
Tue Aug 26 16:54:01 CDT 2003
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, [ISO-8859-1] René Hoffmann wrote:
> That´s the problem - by various reasons we don´t have
> this second machine available.
borrow or lease the second machine.
> Has anybody a detailed answer for my serious question
> below ?
sure. but i believe lots of people have given answers but
it is not the answer you want to hear ? at the end of
the day i am sure there is enough power in the raid controller
interface to do what you would _like_ to do. is it risky?
almost certainly. all the advice i have seen is that most
people consider it _too_ risky based on their experience.
i'm sure we wouldn't mind you trying it out and proving us
> > Is it risky:
> > 1) to replace one 9GB disk with a 36GB ?
it is not inherently risky to replace a 9G drive with a 36G
drive - you are only going to be able to use 9G of it though.
> > 2) to replace more than one disk with a 36GB ?
as above. the 36G drive will just be treated as a 9G one.
> > 3) to replace even the last disk with a 36GB ?
> > - if it´s safe to do that until now, we would
> > have a 9GB container on 36 GB disks -
> > 4) to grow the container size ?
this is not recommended/not easily possible.
> > - if that´s the point: what could we do alternatively -
> > 5) create another container on the left 27GB unused space ?
this may be theoretically possible but i don't think it would
be easily achievable. it may be that to use the 36G drive 'in
full' rather than as a replacement for a 9G drive you would
have to initialize the drive completely and configure it
etc.. this may not happen if you put one in simply to replace
a 9G drive - it may only use the first 9G of the 36G drive.
hmm, i may be able to test this on one of our dev machines.. will
try and let you know how i go.
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge