[I]f I gradually replace all of the drives with larger ones, the array will still read the original size.
This is your official warning that you are in over your head. If you consider your data to be critical in any sense you should use an off-the-shelf solution.
That said, the most straight forward approach to this situation would be to build a second RAID 5 set using the extra space once you have upgraded all of the drives. Depending on the sophistication of the software and hardware driving the RAID set you might be able to set up a RAID 1 on the extra space once two drives have been replaced, then grow that into a RAID 5 as more larger drives come on line.
For extra credit you could manage the space with some form of LVM (Logical Volume Manager/Management).
Also note that "RAID array" sounds foolish, since it would expand to "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks array", which isn't the kind of redundancy we are trying to accomplish.
I wonder why this was modded "troll". I really have an EFI system, and I really want to run Fedora on it (without bootcamp). It really seems to remain unsupported on x86 32.
Was it really something I said? Or is the moderator the troll?
Anyone know what these "red lines" actually are? I mean, it's fun to just assume that the US is wrong, but it would be neat to know what we are actually disagreeing about.
Also, I wouldn't sign anything that was an "Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C". How can we possibly agree to that? Do we have some reason to believe that is withing the G8's power?
If only he would explain how he plans to provide services for society and cut taxes.
You aren't at all familiar with his politics are you? Where's the bit in the Constitution about "providing services"?
He openly criticizes President Bush and members of Congress of his own party for spending money they don't have.
Long story short, he wants to cut spending a lot, and then lower taxes to the degree possible while maintaining a balanced budget.
You might take a look at his blog. He isn't one of these jack-holes who feels perfectly at ease telling everyone that he has some magic system to pay for all the goodies without anyone taking the hit. I believe that he has the guts to make the cuts and stand by them.
I'll vote for him (if he manages to get the nomination) because he's willing to defy his party by doing what his party claims to stand for!
Do you have some sort of source for what you're saying about their LCDs discarding color data? I had a little trouble following your summary of the issue.
Well, I didn't work in HR, so I don't know the ins and outs of how things worked. I do know that the hire was on the condition of passing the background check. I don't believe that the company was on the hook in any way if someone failed.
The reason I think it was smarter/better is that the employer seemed to presume that the perspective employee was on the level, and they didn't invade your privacy until you accepted an offer from them.
Only an employee who failed to disclose relevant information would have anything looming.
I used to work in security at a company that handled tax information. All employees were fingerprinted as required for an FBI background check. I think they way they handled it was smarter than the way the company your sister is dealing with does. They'd hire people, and start training them, but wouldn't print them 'till their first day. They wouldn't give them access to anything sensitive until their backgrounds came back.
I see where you're coming from on the privacy questions, but a background check against a name doesn't give you any assurance that the person you're hiring goes with that name.
Yes, new words must come into being. What makes making up "denialist" better than using "denier"?
Do you think it improves discourse to apply a label associated with holocaust deniers to people who would raise questions about a Scientific conclusion (with huge political ramifications)? I happen to think that it poisons the discussion.
Incidentally, Google gives 215k hits for "cromulent". Does that make cromulent a cromulent word? Oddly enough, "embiggens" shows fewer than 20k.
I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun.
I personally believe that the Earth does go around the Sun, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point!
Assuming you have not yet accepted AGW, what's your threshold? What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?
I swear I have heard that exact statement before, only with Jesus in the place of AGW. (Though I maintain opposite positions on those two questions.)
I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm skeptical of both things that I believe and things that I disbelieve. (I am only too aware of my own intellectual shortcomings.) I think we're using that word in two slightly different ways. The meaning you seem to be using is more like "undecided" and mine is more like "incredulous".
AGW is the prevailing theory, and it's the best thing we have to go by, so, in a very minimal way, I "accept" it. The Scientific process rolls on on the topic, though I am quite disturbed by the apparent financial incentives to find evidence for but not against. I'm also very put off by the U.N.'s involvement in all of this. I believe pretty strongly that there's no problem in this wide world that the U.N. can't exacerbate.
The two far bigger questions in my mind are, if we presume AGW to be the reality, 1. What are the likely effects? and, 2. What are the smart things to do about it?
On it's face it seems obvious: Probably bad, cut carbon emissions.
How we do that in moral, humane, financially responsible way that is appropriate to the likely results of failure is an open question in my opinion.
I worked in Dell support many years ago. Based on the summary it sounded like support had really gone down hill since then. There were really two types of issues described in the fine article: financing and support.
The financing complaints all sound totally legitimate.
The support stuff all sounds like the same old stuff people griped about when I worked there. People griped about this stuff because they didn't read their support contract. Both parties have their end to hold up. In my personal experience, Dell balks at supporting customers who refuse to hold up their end. Yes, this means removing the cover from the PC to troubleshoot. Yes, this means determining what's wrong with the machine over the phone before sending out an on-site tech. Yes, this means you're getting refurbished service parts. These things are all part of how Dell makes money and keeps prices competitive. No one has to take the deal. But once you accept it you can't expect to change the rules to suit your preferences.
I was under the impression that no new refineries had been built in the U.S. for something on the order of two decades, and this was largely due to the compliance costs of regulation. (And that this, in turn keeps production low and prices up.)
Have you made up your mind that AGW is real? Does that mean I should call you by some name like that? Ecodoomer?
My experience indicates that most people actually are open to persuasion, but that the persuader often strongly disagrees with the person he is trying to persuade on what that person's threshold for accepting the theory should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Act. 1:8, New American
The guards cast lots for Jesus' clothes.
Not a prohibition, but certainly not a positive reference.
-Peter
This is your official warning that you are in over your head. If you consider your data to be critical in any sense you should use an off-the-shelf solution.
That said, the most straight forward approach to this situation would be to build a second RAID 5 set using the extra space once you have upgraded all of the drives. Depending on the sophistication of the software and hardware driving the RAID set you might be able to set up a RAID 1 on the extra space once two drives have been replaced, then grow that into a RAID 5 as more larger drives come on line.
For extra credit you could manage the space with some form of LVM (Logical Volume Manager/Management).
Also note that "RAID array" sounds foolish, since it would expand to "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks array", which isn't the kind of redundancy we are trying to accomplish.
Good luck!
-Peter
Isn't this the fundamental problem with all market regulation?
-Peter
Do you recall if it was like that there before cameras were installed in the surrounding area?
-Peter
I have never used Asterisk, but it seems to be a woman saying, "They have been carried away by monkeys."
-Peter
I wonder why this was modded "troll". I really have an EFI system, and I really want to run Fedora on it (without bootcamp). It really seems to remain unsupported on x86 32.
Was it really something I said? Or is the moderator the troll?
-Peter
I don't see EFI boot in the notes. Is this really still not supported?
-Peter
Have you confused the meanings of "promote" and "provide"?
-Peter
Anyone know what these "red lines" actually are? I mean, it's fun to just assume that the US is wrong, but it would be neat to know what we are actually disagreeing about.
Also, I wouldn't sign anything that was an "Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C". How can we possibly agree to that? Do we have some reason to believe that is withing the G8's power?
-Peter
You aren't at all familiar with his politics are you? Where's the bit in the Constitution about "providing services"?
He openly criticizes President Bush and members of Congress of his own party for spending money they don't have.
Long story short, he wants to cut spending a lot, and then lower taxes to the degree possible while maintaining a balanced budget.
You might take a look at his blog. He isn't one of these jack-holes who feels perfectly at ease telling everyone that he has some magic system to pay for all the goodies without anyone taking the hit. I believe that he has the guts to make the cuts and stand by them.
I'll vote for him (if he manages to get the nomination) because he's willing to defy his party by doing what his party claims to stand for!
-Peter
We have a winner.
-Peter
There's a button just below the story marked "Reply". That allows you to make a general reply to the story.
You clicked, "Reply to This" below my post, but you didn't reply to my post.
The clue that you should have been using the "Reply" button was that you backed out my subject line.
-Peter
Let the "This is SPARTA!" jokes begin.
-Peter
Spoken like a man who's never done tech support. Or worked in IT. Or noticed that there are hundreds of books on how to make Windows suck less.
Or, you know, used Windows.
-Peter
Do you have some sort of source for what you're saying about their LCDs discarding color data? I had a little trouble following your summary of the issue.
-Peter
Well, I didn't work in HR, so I don't know the ins and outs of how things worked. I do know that the hire was on the condition of passing the background check. I don't believe that the company was on the hook in any way if someone failed.
The reason I think it was smarter/better is that the employer seemed to presume that the perspective employee was on the level, and they didn't invade your privacy until you accepted an offer from them.
Only an employee who failed to disclose relevant information would have anything looming.
-Peter
Oh. I prefer "burgle". There we are.
-Peter
I used to work in security at a company that handled tax information. All employees were fingerprinted as required for an FBI background check. I think they way they handled it was smarter than the way the company your sister is dealing with does. They'd hire people, and start training them, but wouldn't print them 'till their first day. They wouldn't give them access to anything sensitive until their backgrounds came back.
I see where you're coming from on the privacy questions, but a background check against a name doesn't give you any assurance that the person you're hiring goes with that name.
-Peter
Yes, new words must come into being. What makes making up "denialist" better than using "denier"?
Do you think it improves discourse to apply a label associated with holocaust deniers to people who would raise questions about a Scientific conclusion (with huge political ramifications)? I happen to think that it poisons the discussion.
Incidentally, Google gives 215k hits for "cromulent". Does that make cromulent a cromulent word? Oddly enough, "embiggens" shows fewer than 20k.
-Peter
I personally believe that the Earth does go around the Sun, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point!
I swear I have heard that exact statement before, only with Jesus in the place of AGW. (Though I maintain opposite positions on those two questions.)
I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm skeptical of both things that I believe and things that I disbelieve. (I am only too aware of my own intellectual shortcomings.) I think we're using that word in two slightly different ways. The meaning you seem to be using is more like "undecided" and mine is more like "incredulous".
AGW is the prevailing theory, and it's the best thing we have to go by, so, in a very minimal way, I "accept" it. The Scientific process rolls on on the topic, though I am quite disturbed by the apparent financial incentives to find evidence for but not against. I'm also very put off by the U.N.'s involvement in all of this. I believe pretty strongly that there's no problem in this wide world that the U.N. can't exacerbate.
The two far bigger questions in my mind are, if we presume AGW to be the reality, 1. What are the likely effects? and, 2. What are the smart things to do about it?
On it's face it seems obvious: Probably bad, cut carbon emissions.
How we do that in moral, humane, financially responsible way that is appropriate to the likely results of failure is an open question in my opinion.
-Peter
I worked in Dell support many years ago. Based on the summary it sounded like support had really gone down hill since then. There were really two types of issues described in the fine article: financing and support.
The financing complaints all sound totally legitimate.
The support stuff all sounds like the same old stuff people griped about when I worked there. People griped about this stuff because they didn't read their support contract. Both parties have their end to hold up. In my personal experience, Dell balks at supporting customers who refuse to hold up their end. Yes, this means removing the cover from the PC to troubleshoot. Yes, this means determining what's wrong with the machine over the phone before sending out an on-site tech. Yes, this means you're getting refurbished service parts. These things are all part of how Dell makes money and keeps prices competitive. No one has to take the deal. But once you accept it you can't expect to change the rules to suit your preferences.
-Peter
I was under the impression that no new refineries had been built in the U.S. for something on the order of two decades, and this was largely due to the compliance costs of regulation. (And that this, in turn keeps production low and prices up.)
Am I misinformed?
-Peter
Have you made up your mind that AGW is real? Does that mean I should call you by some name like that? Ecodoomer?
My experience indicates that most people actually are open to persuasion, but that the persuader often strongly disagrees with the person he is trying to persuade on what that person's threshold for accepting the theory should be.
-Peter
That all makes sense, but doesn't seem to be the same context in which ceejayoz used it.
-Peter