RAID issues.

[Sam Graf]

I need the raid running to store my larger files

Just as an aside, if you need the capacity rather than the redundancy of the drives, you might want to give Ubuntu's LVM intall option a look. I've never done LVM under Ubuntu so I can't say exactly where taking that option takes you, but it should allow you to create a single logical volume from multiple drives.

In terms of eBox, the downside of LVM is that eBox gives you a nice summary of the condition of a software RAID array. I may have missed it, but I'm not aware that 1.4 will have any LVM tools. There were none, if I recall correctly, in the recent 1.3 release I looked over.

The upside might be that the Ubuntu installer automates the LVM process, at least compared to setting up a RAID array. Just a thought, as long as we're talking about the possibilities Ubuntu Server 9.10 might offer.

[Vale]

Ok I think thats probably my next move I will get 9.10 on there and see if it will work with the marvell controller.

When is 1.4 due for release?

EDIT: Nevermind just saw the date on the road map. Two weeks not to bad at all.

[Vale]

I need the raid running to store my larger files

Just as an aside, if you need the capacity rather than the redundancy of the drives, you might want to give Ubuntu's LVM intall option a look. I've never done LVM under Ubuntu so I can't say exactly where taking that option takes you, but it should allow you to create a single logical volume from multiple drives.

In terms of eBox, the downside of LVM is that eBox gives you a nice summary of the condition of a software RAID array. I may have missed it, but I'm not aware that 1.4 will have any LVM tools. There were none, if I recall correctly, in the recent 1.3 release I looked over.

The upside might be that the Ubuntu installer automates the LVM process, at least compared to setting up a RAID array. Just a thought, as long as we're talking about the possibilities Ubuntu Server 9.10 might offer.

When I first setup ebox I used LVM, it is a very cool tool. Trouble is, it is hard to then expand hard drive space in the future with out doing a comeplete reinstall.

The way I intend to set it up is using my primary hard drive for the os and then my raid for the data storage which I can mount once ebox is installed. Basically means I can upgrade the drives with out messing around with the os, all I would have to do is back up my data.

Thanks for the advice though.

Vale

[Saturn2888]

I highly doubt 1.4 is gonna release in 2 days. I would give it another month at least. Just from my knowledge of the roadmap. 1.3 needs to be further along in my opinion for 1.4 to release, but maybe the roadmap's correct, and I just sound like a big jerk.

[Sam Graf]

It's hard to say if two weeks is too optimistic or not. We don't have any revision history this side of the first "full" eBox release (1.2) to go by that either.

But the "short" version history also injects uncertainty into the upgrade process. Certain aspects of eBox seem vulnerable to problems during restores or migrates, and the unsupported upgrade path between 1.0 and 1.2 was naturally a risky venture (with some people sorting that as we speak). Once bitten, twice shy when it comes to production machines if nothing else, IMHO.

Since I have other things to do than figure out eBox issues and already have spent too much time (and money) extracting myself from eBox-related problems (precise causes unknown), I think playing it as safe as possible retains the outstanding value of eBox and minimizes any risk. Again, IMHO.

Home users especially may prefer the rush of living on the edge, of course.

[Saturn2888]

I didn't have issues going from 1.0 to 1.2 probably because I was testing out 1.1 in the process and, I did have issues, but not specifically to that upgrade, only to the initial 1.1 version I believe. I guess it's different if you didn't go from 1.1 and especially if you didn't start with 1.2.

Ah yeah, while I'm in a production environment, that environment is at home. I now have two eBoxes and will be swapping out my main one for the new one. During that time I will have that swapped eBox as a test station for things that may or may not work for my production server.

They were talking about High Availability of eBox for version 1.4 or 2.0. I have no clue what that means, but maybe it is important to bring up there. Back to the RAID issue, upgrading should be fine, even upgrading the OS. The real issue is if an OS upgrade messes up eBox or not. My kernel is 2.6.26 by the way, that's one away from the 27 that you need. Maybe it'll come soon.

[Vale]

Yeap I will play around with ubuntu 9.10 see if the support is there for my sata controller.

High availibility would be very useful.
I actually use it in my asterisk system at work. It allows you to have two systems that perform the same operation but use a common network address. The primary server out of the two holds the virtual ip address, if it fails the secondary server won't recieve the "I'm alive" message and takes the virtual ip from the primary server and carries on performing the service in which it was setup to do. In my case it carries on running my phone system.

Definately looking like a awesome alternative to windoze small business server.

[Saturn2888]

High Availability

That's what I thought HA was, but I thought it was called heartbeat or something like that. My ISP designates IPs by MAC address, and I'm allowed 5. I originally made a server in 2007 so I could utilize having all of those IPs without having to have machines directly connected. Since it just came down to using 1 IP, what would happen if I had 2 machines there? Both would have to have the same MAC and the modem wouldn't know the difference nor would my cable company. It would be pretty darn weird, and I doubt it would work.

I don't want to lose my webserver IP for instance because the MAC address shifted when another server came online. I would absolutely love HA because it means I can take down a system for maintenance and still have a working network, but to get it to work, at least in at my house, is to have yet another machine which acts as the gateway connection for those two.

RAID Issue

Maybe install 9.10 into another rig you have and test out the RAID card there. That would tell you right away if it's possible.

[Vale]

That is an interesting idea not sure I have used in a method like that before. Might be able to spoof a mac address that both servers can use so they keep the same assigned ip from your isp.

As for the raid suggestion the raid controller is only compatible with my servers mobo as it has connected to the board via a pin connector.