Am Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008 18:15:11 schrieb Matthias Fechner:
The raid should have a nice of 3TB and not 747GB.
Has anyone an idea what is wrong here?
Kernel w/o CONFIG_LBD?
Bye...
Dirk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hi Dirk,
Dirk Heinrichs schrieb:
Kernel w/o CONFIG_LBD?
thanks a lot!
Best regards,
Matthias
--
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe
Hi Florian,
on Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:55:14AM +0200, you wrote:
Hmm, you might be right. Maybe someone should do a field test.
I think we have a candidate here on the list... ;)
cheers,
Matthias
--
I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665
Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC
Matthias Bethke schrieb:
Hi Florian,
on Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:29:07PM +0200, you wrote:
Note1: NEVER EVER build some kind of RAID other than Linear (also called
JBOD) over two IDE disks on the same cable. Performance will suffer greatly
as will security because most simple onboard
Hi Florian,
on Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:29:07PM +0200, you wrote:
Note1: NEVER EVER build some kind of RAID other than Linear (also called
JBOD) over two IDE disks on the same cable. Performance will suffer greatly
as will security because most simple onboard controllers can't handle a
dying
On 27 Aug 2008, at 20:00, Benoit St-Pierre wrote:
...
I have two 500GB SATA drives, a 320GB IDE and a 250GB IDE.
...
I would like to set these up so that the maximum amount of disk
space is usable, but still be able to recover from any one drive
failing. I would also like to be able to add
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:11:48 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Hard-drives from the scrap pile can be immensely useful, but if you
want ease of setup, reliability, redundancy and peace-of-mind then
scratch cheap off your list of requirements.
As the saying goes Cheap, reliable, fast - pick any two.
On 28 Aug 2008, at 10:24, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:11:48 +0100, Stroller wrote:
Hard-drives from the scrap pile can be immensely useful, but if you
want ease of setup, reliability, redundancy and peace-of-mind then
scratch cheap off your list of requirements.
As the
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:53:16 +0100, Stroller wrote:
I did open my message with the words cheap, fast purty
Sorry, I missed that.
- it all depends what you're buying. ;)
I think we'll end this conversation right here :)
--
Neil Bothwick
Is it possible to be totally partial?
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:00:11 Benoit St-Pierre, you wrote :
I'm in the planning stages of setting up a file server and am considering
using RAID.
My concern is that my drive sizes are mixed. I have two 500GB SATA drives,
a 320GB IDE and a 250GB IDE.
I would like to set these up so
I though you can have up to 255 partitions/drive. The partitions would be in
a RAID array so I wouldn't have to deal with them directly anyway.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Xav' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:00:11 Benoit St-Pierre, you wrote :
I'm in the
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:00:11 -0400, Benoit St-Pierre wrote:
I'm in the planning stages of setting up a file server and am
considering using RAID.
My concern is that my drive sizes are mixed. I have two 500GB SATA
drives, a 320GB IDE and a 250GB IDE.
I would like to set these up so that
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:49:22 Benoit St-Pierre, you wrote :
I though you can have up to 255 partitions/drive. The partitions would be
in a RAID array so I wouldn't have to deal with them directly anyway.
After little googling, it seems that the number of logical partitions may be
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:00:11 -0400, Benoit St-Pierre wrote:
I'm in the planning stages of setting up a file server and am
considering using RAID.
My concern is that my drive sizes are mixed. I have two 500GB SATA
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Xav' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 21:49:22 Benoit St-Pierre, you wrote :
I though you can have up to 255 partitions/drive. The partitions would be
in a RAID array so I wouldn't have to deal with them directly anyway.
After little
Benoit St-Pierre schrieb:
I'm in the planning stages of setting up a file server and am considering
using RAID.
My concern is that my drive sizes are mixed. I have two 500GB SATA drives, a
320GB IDE and a 250GB IDE.
I would like to set these up so that the maximum amount of disk space is
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:34:51 +0100
Mike Williams wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:08:21 Arnau Bria wrote:
Hi,
[...]
I'm doing this:
with /dev/md0 unmounted:
resize2fs -f /dev/md0
but with md1 and I get this error:
# resize2fs -f /dev/md1
resize2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006)
Resizing the
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:03:08 +0200
Arnau Bria wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:34:51 +0100
Mike Williams wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:08:21 Arnau Bria wrote:
Hi,
[...]
I'm doing this:
with /dev/md0 unmounted:
resize2fs -f /dev/md0
but with md1 and I get this error:
#
On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:08:21 Arnau Bria wrote:
Hi,
following http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_Install_on_Software_RAID
and some other docs, I moved my system to RAID 1.
Using gentoo LiveCD, all my config worked fine: I was able to mount md0
and md1 (at this point my only raid
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:34:51 +0100
Mike Williams wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:08:21 Arnau Bria wrote:
[...]
The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 104420 blocks
The physical size of the device is 104320 blocks
Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to
On Sunday 21 October 2007 20:29:47 Arnau Bria wrote:
with /dev/md0 unmounted:
resize2fs -f /dev/md0
If same thing happens with md1, I suppose I must boot with livecd and
do the same with md1, am I right?
Yeah, you can't reduce the filesystem online. The RAIDing shrinks the space
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:42:57 +0100
Mike Williams wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007 20:29:47 Arnau Bria wrote:
[...]
Yeah, you can't reduce the filesystem online. The RAIDing shrinks the
space available for the filesystem slightly. I don't know why, but
I've had the same problem before.
thanks
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:30:51 +0200
Arnau Bria wrote:
[...]
Let me ask you one more thing. I have this device:
md3 : active raid1 hdh6[1]
98727360 blocks [2/1] [_U]
And I'd like to add hdf6, and then sync but against it (I mean, make
hdf6 primary and copy its data to hdh6).
I'd
On Sunday 21 October 2007 22:03:23 Arnau Bria wrote:
Let me ask you one more thing. I have this device:
md3 : active raid1 hdh6[1]
98727360 blocks [2/1] [_U]
And I'd like to add hdf6, and then sync but against it (I mean, make
hdf6 primary and copy its data to hdh6).
I'd
Hello Mike Williams,
Yeah, you can't reduce the filesystem online. The RAIDing shrinks the
space available for the filesystem slightly. I don't know why, but I've
had the same problem before.
The RAID superblock is stored at the end of the partition.
--
Neil Bothwick
Puritanism: The
I think you need to try running a real benchmark like bonnie++ against both.
For example, you run time dd but you don't include the sync in the
time...
Daniel Iliev wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
Hello Daniel Iliev,
Actually I'd be glad to read some results from a Fake RAID-0 vs
Hello Daniel Iliev,
Here we go. I think the results can't be interpreted unambiguously.
Perhaps I'll use a benchmarking program in the weekend to get clearer
results.
I've found time to move things off the RAID to I can compare with freshly
formatted filesystems. LVM on top of RAID-0 is
Neil Bothwick wrote:
Hello Daniel Iliev,
Actually I'd be glad to read some results from a Fake RAID-0 vs LVM
tests. My bet would be that RAID-0 w/o LVM would give the best speeds
Omitting LVM isn't an option, I'd lose all the flexibility that LVM
offers. I don't see why RAID-0
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:39:06 +0300, Daniel Iliev wrote:
Out of curiosity I made some tests which confirmed my expectations. What
about you - did you have time (and wish) to take some performance
benchmarks? I would be glad to see some additional results.
So your tests show that RAID-0 is
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:39:06 +0300, Daniel Iliev wrote:
Out of curiosity I made some tests which confirmed my expectations. What
about you - did you have time (and wish) to take some performance
benchmarks? I would be glad to see some additional results.
So
Daniel Iliev wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:39:06 +0300, Daniel Iliev wrote:
Out of curiosity I made some tests which confirmed my expectations. What
about you - did you have time (and wish) to take some performance
benchmarks? I would be glad to see some
Hello Daniel Iliev,
Actually I'd be glad to read some results from a Fake RAID-0 vs LVM
tests. My bet would be that RAID-0 w/o LVM would give the best speeds
Omitting LVM isn't an option, I'd lose all the flexibility that LVM
offers. I don't see why RAID-0 should be necessarily more efficient
Neil Bothwick wrote:
LVM stripes data
across the drives anyway, am I gaining anything from the RAID-0? Would I
be just as well off by adding the two partitions directly to the LVM
group?
Hi, Neil
I have to admit I've never made such tests and I'm guessing here but I
would say that you
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:52:26 -0700
kashani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Farrell wrote:
in reality, though, I think the best performance would probaby
involve just using the fast drive. RAID introduces too much
overhead to make up for itself in this situation I think.
I'm betting the
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:14:28 -
Nelson, David \(ED, PARD\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: mwq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 March 2007 21:00
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-user] RAID
I have one laic question which may not be
Dan Farrell wrote:
in reality, though, I think the best performance would probaby involve
just using the fast drive. RAID introduces too much overhead to make
up for itself in this situation I think.
I'm betting the act of seeking across the platters on the fast drive for
two separate
-Original Message-
From: mwq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 March 2007 21:00
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-user] RAID
I have one laic question which may not be directly connected
to Gentoo but I think you'll forgive me that.
Imagine such a situation: I
On Saturday 10 March 2007, mwq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about '[gentoo-user]
RAID':
Imagine such a situation: I have two
hard drives but drive A is twice faster when reading and writing then
drive B. I want to make RAID 0 using A and B. Why are the stripes sizes
on both drives excacly the
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:59:41 +0100
mwq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one laic question which may not be directly connected to
Gentoo but I think you'll forgive me that. Imagine such a situation:
I have two hard drives but drive A is twice faster when reading and
writing then drive B. I want
Thanks to *NeddySeagoon *from Gentoo forums, I've been able to resolve
my problem. It turned out not to be RAID related at all: I made and
mistake in configuring support for my IDE controller!
R
Randall Barlow wrote:
Howdy, I'm trying a new install (since I hosed my last one) and I
figured
Rafael Fernández López wrote:
I've *NO IDEA* of how should I configure GRUB to detect my RAID. If you
can help me I'd be very happy !!
Hi Rafael,
hope this will help:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/Special:Search?search=Raidgo=Go
If you are gonna using LVM, also
On 3/2/06, Marton Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Thank you all for the fast replies, you helped me a lot. Unfortunately
we cannot afford a HW RAID card, so I have to make it with software RAID.
Now I have the idea to use RAID5 and if I get the picure rigth I need
let's say a ~100MB /boot
Richard Fish wrote:
On 3/2/06, Marton Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
let's say a ~100MB /boot in RAID1, 512MB swap not in RAID on every disk,
Actually, if you make 512MB non-raid swap on each disk with equal
priority, its like having swap on raid0 (it will be stripped over
swap-partitions on
On 3/2/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly, I dont understand this. Why should the write speed be so
degraded? If you have 4 disks in raid5, and you want to write
1.5 GB of data, you actually write 500MB on disk1, 500MB on disk2,
500MB on disk3 and 500MB on disk4 (1.5 GB data + 0.5 GB
Marton Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- could someone give me a good howto?
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-tipsntricks.xml#software-raid
- do I need to make a /boot partition which is not part of any
arrays or will grub boot from raid1+0?
You can make /boot on raid too, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marton Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- could someone give me a good howto?
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-tipsntricks.xml#software-raid
- do I need to make a /boot partition which is not part of any
arrays or will grub boot from raid1+0?
On 2/20/06, Nick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think im confusing myself here. can you partition a raid device aka
/dev/md0?
Yes. You can either use mdadm to create a partitionable raid device,
or use LVM/EVMS (which would be my recommendation) to create logical
volumes on the array.
Just
On Monday 20 February 2006 09:57, Nick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about '[gentoo-user] raid/partition question':
just wanted to ask before i mess something up.
i have booted off the install cd, created a raidtab with my mirrored
drives on it. i have created the raid. now, do i go in and
On Monday 20 February 2006 11:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about
'Re: Re: [gentoo-user] raid/partition question':
As an extension of this question since I'm working on setting up a
system now.
What is better to do with LVM2 after the RAID is created. I am using
EVMS also.
1. Make all
: [gentoo-user] raid/partition question
On Monday 20 February 2006 11:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about
'Re: Re: [gentoo-user] raid/partition question':
As an extension of this question since I'm working on setting up a
system now.
3. Neither. See below. First a discussion of the two
On Sunday 30 October 2005 05:42, Qiangning Hong wrote:
Did you use mdadm to make the arrays?
No, I create /etc/raidtab by hand and run mkraid for each md device,
following the steps of
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_Install_on_Software_RAID
You can ignore any howto that tells you to
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Qiangning Hong wrote:
As grub cannot be setup on RAID0 (neither RAID 1+0 nor RAID 0+1), I have
to create a four-partion RAID1 with /dev/sd[abcd]1 and mount it as /boot.
Then I want both my / and /var are RAID10. I use the following schema:
/dev/sda3/dev/sdb3
A. Khattri wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Qiangning Hong wrote:
As grub cannot be setup on RAID0 (neither RAID 1+0 nor RAID 0+1), I have
to create a four-partion RAID1 with /dev/sd[abcd]1 and mount it as /boot.
Then I want both my / and /var are RAID10. I use the following schema:
/dev/sda3
Richard Fish wrote:
I think a far better option would be to filter them in
/etc/syslog-ng/syslog-ng.conf. Then you do not have to re-patch your
kernel with every upgrade.
This affects only output via syslog. During the md autorun, the kernel hasn't
even finished booting. The post was about
Christoph Gysin wrote:
Richard Fish wrote:
I think a far better option would be to filter them in
/etc/syslog-ng/syslog-ng.conf. Then you do not have to re-patch your
kernel with every upgrade.
This affects only output via syslog. During the md autorun, the kernel hasn't
even finished
Christoph Gysin wrote:
Patrick wrote:
This is my first raid, i got it working without problems (i think) but my
dmesg contains this:
Is this a normal behaviour
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md: autorun ...
...
The md kernel module is quite verbose. Here is a patch to make the kernel
Patrick wrote:
Hi,
This is my first raid, i got it working without problems (i think) but my
dmesg contains this:
Is this a normal behaviour
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
md: autorun ...
md: considering hdb13 ...
md: adding hdb13 ...
md: hdb12 has different UUID to hdb13
Looks ok to
101 - 157 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
