Neil Brown wrote:
OK, this time I really want to know how this should be handled.
Well. it "should" be handled by re-writing various bits of raid code
to make it all work more easily, but without doing that it "could" be
handled by marking the partitions as hold raid componenets (0XFE I
On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
OK, this time I really want to know how this should be handled.
Well. it "should" be handled by re-writing various bits of raid code
to make it all work more easily, but without doing that it "could" be
handled by
On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux 2.4.1/RAIDtools2 0.90
I have 4 ide disks which have identical partition layouts.
RAID is working successfully, its even booting RAID1.
I created a RAID5 set on a set of 4 partitions, which works OK.
I then destroyed that set and
In the raidtab file where you describe the raid0 arrays, make sure to
say:
persistent-superblock = 1
Yep, it was already set to 1 (sorry, forgot to write that in my original post)
Cheers, Suad
--
(or whatever the correct systax is). The default is 0 (== no) for
back compat I
Neil Brown wrote:
On Sunday February 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
OK, this time I really want to know how this should be handled.
Well. it "should" be handled by re-writing various bits of raid code
to make it all work more easily, but without doing that it
Hi,
I have setup a raid0 on two u2w SCSI disks, but the performance, as reported
by tiobench and bonnie++, is inferior of a single (the faster) disk; can this
be because the two disks are different or the filesystem is reiserfs?
I run the tests in multiuser, without user activity, but under
