Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
The only issue is that the md code only auto-scans non-MD partitions when assembling a RAID array. You can use mdadm at boot time to put them together as other people have shown, or you can add an option to the kernel command line (LILO append=... option; other boot loaders have something similar) to help it out. Since I have my root partition on RAID1+0, I have md=4,/dev/md2,/dev/md3 on the kernel command line. This gets /dev/md4 (which is a RAID-0 made of two RAID-1s) going. Oh, regarding data placement: I also have the RAID-1 split across controllers. Also, I have half the mirror in removable drive trays for emergency insta-backup (fire or other natural disaster) uses. There are uses for such things. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
RAID10 will work with an odd number of disks! If really is cool! But, since you need control of what is where, you don't want RAID10. You should create RAID1 arrays. Each of your RAID1 arrays should have 2 disks, each on a different controller/channel. Then create a single RAID0 array out of the RAID1 arrays. Guy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Holger Kiehl Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:13 AM To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-raid Subject: Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm. I have since upgraded to mdadm 1.8 and setup a RAID10. However I need something that is production worthy. Is a RAID10 something I could rely on as well? Also under a RAID10 how do you tell it which drives you want mirrored? raid10 is 2.6 only, but should be quite stable. You cannot tell it which drives to mirror because you shouldn't care. You just give it a bunch of identical drives and let it put the data where it wants. If you really want to care (and I cannot imagine why you would - all drives in a raid10 are likely to get similar load) then you have to build it by hand - a raid0 of multiple raid1s. But what about redundancy? The only reason why on some systems I choose raid 1+0 and not raid10, is that I want the raid 1 always on two different controllers or channels. So if there is some problem with the SCSI bus you will only loose one half of your array. I think with raid10 it can be that you loose your complete array, because a whole raid1 can sit on a single controller/channel. Is this assumption correct, or does raid10 have some magic to solve this? Thanks, Holger - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 04:24:34PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: On Wednesday January 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bug that's fixed in 1.9.0, is in a bug when you create the array? ie do we need to use 1.9.0 to create the array. I'm looking to do the same but my bootdisk currently only has 1.7.soemthing on it. Do I need to make a custom bootcd with 1.9.0 on it? This issue that will be fixed in 1.9.0 has nothing to do with creating the array. It is only relevant for stacked arrays (e.g. a raid0 made out of 2 or more raid1 arrays), and only if you are using mdadm --assemble --scan (or similar) to assemble your arrays, and you specify the devices to scan in mdadm.conf as DEVICES partitions (i.e. don't list actual devices, just say to get them from the list of known partitions). actually the last statement is not true, a missing close(mdfd); causes mdadm --assemble --scan to fail the first round even if you do specify DEV /dev/mdX in mdadm.conf. L. -- Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Media Services S.r.l. /\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN XAGAINST HTML MAIL / \ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.)
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:50:43AM -0500, Guy wrote: RAID10 will work with an odd number of disks! If really is cool! It will? How? Does it just make the last mirror pair have 3 disks or what? If so then wouldn't it be better just to not have that disk under md and use it for someting else? -- The optimum programming team size is 1. Has Jurassic Park taught us nothing? -- pfilandr pgpitjuAjleuB.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
By the way the patches did not fix my boot issue with the RAID 1+0. I am using SuSe 9.2 if this helps. I've had to add in a few extra lines into my boot.local to get it show up at boot. Brad Dameron SeaTab Software www.seatab.com On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 14:14, J. Ryan Earl wrote: This bug that's fixed in 1.9.0, is in a bug when you create the array? ie do we need to use 1.9.0 to create the array. I'm looking to do the same but my bootdisk currently only has 1.7.soemthing on it. Do I need to make a custom bootcd with 1.9.0 on it? Thanks, -ryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Luca Berra Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:17 AM To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm. On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:28:21PM -0800, Brad Dameron wrote: Everything seems ok after boot. But again no /dev/md0 in /proc/mdstat. But then if I do a mdadm --assemble --scan it will then load /dev/md0. there is a bug in mdadm, see my mail patches for mdadm 1.8.0 or wait for 1.9.0 L. -- Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Media Services S.r.l. /\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN XAGAINST HTML MAIL / \ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.)
It rotates the pairs! Assume 3 disks, A, B and C. Each stripe would be on these disks: A+B C+A B+C A+B C+A B+C ... Maybe not exactly as above, but if not, something similar. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Smith Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:19 AM To: 'linux-raid' Subject: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.) On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:50:43AM -0500, Guy wrote: RAID10 will work with an odd number of disks! If really is cool! It will? How? Does it just make the last mirror pair have 3 disks or what? If so then wouldn't it be better just to not have that disk under md and use it for someting else? -- The optimum programming team size is 1. Has Jurassic Park taught us nothing? -- pfilandr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.)
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0500, Guy wrote: It rotates the pairs! Assume 3 disks, A, B and C. Each stripe would be on these disks: A+B C+A B+C A+B C+A B+C ... Hmm, difficult to visualise and comprehend if there are any differences as opposed to normal RAID-10. Is this anything like how RAID-1E works on IBM ServeRAID? pgpsex2AkWTN6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.)
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:27:00PM +, Andy Smith wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0500, Guy wrote: It rotates the pairs! Assume 3 disks, A, B and C. Each stripe would be on these disks: A+B C+A B+C A+B C+A B+C ... Hmm, difficult to visualise and comprehend if there are any differences as opposed to normal RAID-10. Is this anything like how RAID-1E works on IBM ServeRAID? This seems relevant: http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?sess=nolanguage=English+USprodkey=raid_10_alternativestype=White%20Papers pgpRr143v611i.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.)
A normal RAID 10 requires an even number of disks. Neil gave a detailed description. Maybe 6 months ago. Do a search for RAID10 or raid10. I just looked at the link you gave. RAID-1E does look like the RAID10 that md supports. Until today, I had never seen RAID-1E. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Smith Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:42 PM To: 'linux-raid' Subject: Re: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.) On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:27:00PM +, Andy Smith wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0500, Guy wrote: It rotates the pairs! Assume 3 disks, A, B and C. Each stripe would be on these disks: A+B C+A B+C A+B C+A B+C ... Hmm, difficult to visualise and comprehend if there are any differences as opposed to normal RAID-10. Is this anything like how RAID-1E works on IBM ServeRAID? This seems relevant: http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?sess=nolanguage =English+USprodkey=raid_10_alternativestype=White%20Papers - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.)
In the past, I have found the quite often, too often, the disk errors happened in the 1st sectors of the disk (and I still have to reboot often). It does not look good when losing a whole disk, eh? b- On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:16:31 -0500, Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It rotates the pairs! Assume 3 disks, A, B and C. Each stripe would be on these disks: A+B C+A B+C A+B C+A B+C ... Maybe not exactly as above, but if not, something similar. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Smith Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:19 AM To: 'linux-raid' Subject: RAID-10 with odd number of disks (was Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.) On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:50:43AM -0500, Guy wrote: RAID10 will work with an odd number of disks! If really is cool! It will? How? Does it just make the last mirror pair have 3 disks or what? If so then wouldn't it be better just to not have that disk under md and use it for someting else? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:28:21PM -0800, Brad Dameron wrote: Everything seems ok after boot. But again no /dev/md0 in /proc/mdstat. But then if I do a mdadm --assemble --scan it will then load /dev/md0. there is a bug in mdadm, see my mail patches for mdadm 1.8.0 or wait for 1.9.0 L. -- Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Media Services S.r.l. /\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN XAGAINST HTML MAIL / \ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
This bug that's fixed in 1.9.0, is in a bug when you create the array? ie do we need to use 1.9.0 to create the array. I'm looking to do the same but my bootdisk currently only has 1.7.soemthing on it. Do I need to make a custom bootcd with 1.9.0 on it? Thanks, -ryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Luca Berra Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:17 AM To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm. On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:28:21PM -0800, Brad Dameron wrote: Everything seems ok after boot. But again no /dev/md0 in /proc/mdstat. But then if I do a mdadm --assemble --scan it will then load /dev/md0. there is a bug in mdadm, see my mail patches for mdadm 1.8.0 or wait for 1.9.0 L. -- Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Media Services S.r.l. /\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN XAGAINST HTML MAIL / \ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 15:04, Guy wrote: For a more stable array, build a RAID0 out of 2 RAID1 arrays. Like this: mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 You can put a file system directly on /dev/md0 Are all of the disks on the same cable? Not sure about your booting issue. Guy Ya I did this setup as well. Still the same booting issue. Once it's booted I can run mdadm --assemble --scan and it will find just the stripe and then add it. I saw several people having this issue on a google search. But never any solutions. Brad Dameron SeaTab Software www.seatab.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
On Wednesday January 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This bug that's fixed in 1.9.0, is in a bug when you create the array? ie do we need to use 1.9.0 to create the array. I'm looking to do the same but my bootdisk currently only has 1.7.soemthing on it. Do I need to make a custom bootcd with 1.9.0 on it? This issue that will be fixed in 1.9.0 has nothing to do with creating the array. It is only relevant for stacked arrays (e.g. a raid0 made out of 2 or more raid1 arrays), and only if you are using mdadm --assemble --scan (or similar) to assemble your arrays, and you specify the devices to scan in mdadm.conf as DEVICES partitions (i.e. don't list actual devices, just say to get them from the list of known partitions). So, no: no need for a custom bootcd. NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
On Tuesday January 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Been trying for days to get a software RAID 0+1 setup. This is on SuSe 9.2 with kernel 2.6.8-24.11-smp x86_64. I am trying to setup a RAID 0+1 with 4 250gb SATA drives. I do the following: mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 This all works fine and I can mkreiserfs /dev/md0 and mount it. If I am then to reboot /dev/md1 and /dev/md2 will show up in the /proc/mdstat but not /dev/md0. So I create a /etc/mdadm.conf like so to see if this will work: DEVICE partitions DEVICE /dev/md* ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=5e6efe7d:6f5de80b:82ef7843:148cd518 devices=/dev/sdd1,/dev/sde1 ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=e81e74f9:1cf84f87:7747c1c9:b3f08a81 devices=/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 devices=/dev/md2,/dev/md1 Everything seems ok after boot. But again no /dev/md0 in /proc/mdstat. But then if I do a mdadm --assemble --scan it will then load /dev/md0. My guess is that you are (or SuSE is) relying on autodetect to assemble the arrays. Autodetect cannot assemble an array made of other arrays. Just an array made of partitions. If you disable the autodetect stuff and make sure mdadm --assemble --scan is in a boot-script somewhere, it should just work. Also, you don't really want the device=/dev/sdd1... entries in mdadm.conf. They tell mdadm to require the devices to have those names. If you add or remove scsi drives at all, the names can change. Just rely on the UUID. Also do I need to create partitions? Or can I setup the whole drives as the array? You don't need partitions. I have since upgraded to mdadm 1.8 and setup a RAID10. However I need something that is production worthy. Is a RAID10 something I could rely on as well? Also under a RAID10 how do you tell it which drives you want mirrored? raid10 is 2.6 only, but should be quite stable. You cannot tell it which drives to mirror because you shouldn't care. You just give it a bunch of identical drives and let it put the data where it wants. If you really want to care (and I cannot imagine why you would - all drives in a raid10 are likely to get similar load) then you have to build it by hand - a raid0 of multiple raid1s. NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
Sorry, I did not intend this to be the solution to your problem. Just a much more stable method for creating the 1+0 array. With this method, losing 1 disk only requires re-syncing 1 disk. With the array as a 0+1, if you lose 1 disk, you lose the whole RAID0 array, which then requires re-syncing 2 disks of data. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Dameron Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 3:33 PM To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm. On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 15:04, Guy wrote: For a more stable array, build a RAID0 out of 2 RAID1 arrays. Like this: mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 You can put a file system directly on /dev/md0 Are all of the disks on the same cable? Not sure about your booting issue. Guy Ya I did this setup as well. Still the same booting issue. Once it's booted I can run mdadm --assemble --scan and it will find just the stripe and then add it. I saw several people having this issue on a google search. But never any solutions. Brad Dameron SeaTab Software www.seatab.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
Been trying for days to get a software RAID 0+1 setup. This is on SuSe 9.2 with kernel 2.6.8-24.11-smp x86_64. I am trying to setup a RAID 0+1 with 4 250gb SATA drives. I do the following: mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 This all works fine and I can mkreiserfs /dev/md0 and mount it. If I am then to reboot /dev/md1 and /dev/md2 will show up in the /proc/mdstat but not /dev/md0. So I create a /etc/mdadm.conf like so to see if this will work: DEVICE partitions DEVICE /dev/md* ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=5e6efe7d:6f5de80b:82ef7843:148cd518 devices=/dev/sdd1,/dev/sde1 ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=e81e74f9:1cf84f87:7747c1c9:b3f08a81 devices=/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 devices=/dev/md2,/dev/md1 Everything seems ok after boot. But again no /dev/md0 in /proc/mdstat. But then if I do a mdadm --assemble --scan it will then load /dev/md0. Also do I need to create partitions? Or can I setup the whole drives as the array? I have since upgraded to mdadm 1.8 and setup a RAID10. However I need something that is production worthy. Is a RAID10 something I could rely on as well? Also under a RAID10 how do you tell it which drives you want mirrored? Any help appreciated. Thank you, Brad Dameron SeaTab Software www.seatab.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm.
For a more stable array, build a RAID0 out of 2 RAID1 arrays. Like this: mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 You can put a file system directly on /dev/md0 Are all of the disks on the same cable? Not sure about your booting issue. Guy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Dameron Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:28 PM To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Software RAID 0+1 with mdadm. Been trying for days to get a software RAID 0+1 setup. This is on SuSe 9.2 with kernel 2.6.8-24.11-smp x86_64. I am trying to setup a RAID 0+1 with 4 250gb SATA drives. I do the following: mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=0 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --chunk=4 --raid-devices=2 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 This all works fine and I can mkreiserfs /dev/md0 and mount it. If I am then to reboot /dev/md1 and /dev/md2 will show up in the /proc/mdstat but not /dev/md0. So I create a /etc/mdadm.conf like so to see if this will work: DEVICE partitions DEVICE /dev/md* ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=5e6efe7d:6f5de80b:82ef7843:148cd518 devices=/dev/sdd1,/dev/sde1 ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid0 num-devices=2 UUID=e81e74f9:1cf84f87:7747c1c9:b3f08a81 devices=/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 devices=/dev/md2,/dev/md1 Everything seems ok after boot. But again no /dev/md0 in /proc/mdstat. But then if I do a mdadm --assemble --scan it will then load /dev/md0. Also do I need to create partitions? Or can I setup the whole drives as the array? I have since upgraded to mdadm 1.8 and setup a RAID10. However I need something that is production worthy. Is a RAID10 something I could rely on as well? Also under a RAID10 how do you tell it which drives you want mirrored? Any help appreciated. Thank you, Brad Dameron SeaTab Software www.seatab.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
