On 1 Dec 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:
On Dec 1 2007 06:19, Justin Piszcz wrote:
RAID1, 0.90.03 superblocks (in order to be compatible with LILO, if
you use 1.x superblocks with LILO you can't boot)
Says who? (Don't use LILO ;-)
Well, your kernels must be on a
Peter Grandi wrote:
[ ... on RAID1, ... RAID6 error recovery ... ]
tn The use case for the proposed 'repair' would be occasional,
tn low-frequency corruption, for which many sources can be
tn imagined:
tn Any piece of hardware has a certain failure rate, which may
tn depend on things like age,
Dragos wrote:
Thank you for your very fast answers.
First I tried 'fsck -n' on the existing array. The answer was that If I
wanted to check a XFS partition I should use 'xfs_check'. That seems to
say that my array was partitioned with xfs, not reiserfs. Am I correct?
Then I tried the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Grandi) writes:
ms I just want to give another suggestion. It may or may not be
ms possible to repair inconsistent arrays but in either way some
ms code there MUST at least warn the administrator that
ms something (may) went wrong.
tn Agreed.
That sounds instead
I saw something really similar while moving some very large (300MB to
4GB) files.
I was really surprised to see actual disk I/O (as measured by dstat)
be really horrible.
--
Jon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
