[SWLUG] Ubuntu Server Install No CD

[Steve Anderson]

Why not use LVM? Start off with one hard drive and the CD ROM, set up
LVM on that drive, then pull the CD ROM and replace with the second
hard drive and extend the LVM onto it? That's what I'd do (and, in
fact, have done - although I can't remember the ins and outs as well
as Google can).

Out of curiosity, what spec is the server? I don't recall ever seeing
a machine with a single IDE channel and no alternative (like SCSI or
SATA) that I'd trust to have the horsepower to serve anything of any
consequence.

Steve

On 05/09/06, Daniel Morgan <me at plod.tv> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Keith Edmunds wrote:
> > Looking for what?
> A tutorial on how to do a no cd install or such.
> > Are you contemplating using RAID-5 or RAID-1? RAID-5 is very
> > compute-intensive, and if this is an old server then you may find
> > the performance drops a bit too far under load. Also remember that
> > you can only write to one drive on a given IDE channel at any one
> > time, so if you're writing to 3 or 4 disks on two channels then
> > again you may hit a performance problem. Of course, you may have
> > more than two IDE channels in which case you can put each of three
> > drives on its own channel.
> >
> > There's no real reason why you can't put CD and hard disk on the
> > same channel - time was when this would slow the channel to the
> > speed of the slowest device, but that's no longer the case. If
> > you're using RAID-1, and thus only need two disks, this would be
> > the easiest way of fixing the installation problem.
> >
> > You might also think about future maintenance - if there's no CD
> > (and, if an old server, presumably no opportunity to boot from a
> > USB device), then that could present problems. You probably don't
> > want to try to diagnose a no-boot system from TOMSRTBT, good
> > thought it is!
> Thanks for the response. I intend to use raid 0. The server has only
> one ide ribbon, and although you have raised an interesting point
> about performance, this is still the way I wish to go because of the
> spanned volume, therefore more disk space. I need a partition bigger
> than the size of the drives hold on their own.
>
> Dan (Plod)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFE/aafBj1OwWTuiBIRAjuDAJwP2MGPM8reUpK8gkdVj73XbBRlPACfYKYB
> +xOBKs2wdQzI49ppWLX7YN8=
> =z5ro
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> SWLUG Discussion List - Discuss at swlug.org
> http://swlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


-- 
Irregular Shed - http://www.twindx.com