On 2005-02-03T08:39:41, H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, right now there is no RAID5-RAID6 conversion tool that I know of.
Hm. One of the checksums is identical, as is the disk layout of the
data, no?
So wouldn't mdadm with the right parameters forcing the right super
block to be
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2005-02-03T08:39:41, H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, right now there is no RAID5-RAID6 conversion tool that I know of.
Hm. One of the checksums is identical, as is the disk layout of the
data, no?
No, the layout is different.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 02:12:38AM +, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Anyway... I'm thinking of sending in a patch to take out the
experimental status of RAID-6. I have been running a 1 TB
production server in 1-disk degraded mode for about a month now
without incident.
Out of interest, how many
Guy wrote:
Would you say that the 2.6 Kernel is suitable for storing mission-critical
data, then?
Sure. I'd trust 2.6 over 2.4 at this point.
I ask because I have read about a lot of problems with data corruption and
oops on this list and the SCSI list. But in most or all cases the 2.4
Kernel
Would you say that the 2.6 Kernel is suitable for storing mission-critical
data, then?
I ask because I have read about a lot of problems with data corruption and
oops on this list and the SCSI list. But in most or all cases the 2.4
Kernel does not have the same problem.
Who out there has a
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Guy wrote:
Would you say that the 2.6 Kernel is suitable for storing mission-critical
data, then?
Sure. I'd trust 2.6 over 2.4 at this point.
This is interesting to hear.
I ask because I have read about a lot of problems with data corruption
I am pleased to announce the availability of
mdadm version 1.9.0
It is available at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/mdadm/
and
http://www.{countrycode}.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
as a source tar-ball and (at the first site) as an SRPM, and as an RPM for i386.
Neil Brown wrote:
Release 1.9.0 adds:
...
- --assemble --auto recognises 'standard' name and insists on using
the appropriate major/minor number for them.
Is this the problem I encountered when I added auto=md to my mdadm.conf
file?
It caused all sorts of problems - which were
On Friday February 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
Release 1.9.0 adds:
...
- --assemble --auto recognises 'standard' name and insists on using
the appropriate major/minor number for them.
Is this the problem I encountered when I added auto=md to my
