Hi Folks,
I am trying to create RAID5 array using mdadm on kernel 2.6.15 as
# mdadm -Cv /dev/md0 --assume-clean --force --bitmap=/tmp/bitmap.txt -l5 -n4
/dev/sd{a,b,c,d}
But when I execute this command getting the following error:
mdadm: RUN_ARRAY failed: Cannot allocate memory
# dmesg shows
On Tuesday April 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am trying to create RAID5 array using mdadm on kernel 2.6.15 as
# mdadm -Cv /dev/md0 --assume-clean --force --bitmap=/tmp/bitmap.txt -l5 -n4
/dev/sd{a,b,c,d}
But when I execute this command getting the following error:
mdadm:
Hi Neil,
I have set --bitmap-chunk=1024 and RAID5 gets created successfully.
But why I will have to set --bitmap-chunk for big size devices such as 500GB
each in my case?
What is the default value of --bitmap-chunk?
Thanks,
Yogesh
-Original Message-
From: Neil Brown [mailto:[EMAIL
On Tuesday April 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil,
I have set --bitmap-chunk=1024 and RAID5 gets created successfully.
Good.
But why I will have to set --bitmap-chunk for big size devices such as 500GB
each in my case?
What is the default value of --bitmap-chunk?
4, which is
Hi Neil,
Actually I want to calculate the performance of a RAID5 MD array in rebuild
state.
For doing this I do the following steps:
# mdadm -f /dev/md0 /dev/sda
mdadm: set /dev/sda faulty in /dev/md0
# mdadm -r /dev/md0 /dev/sda
mdadm: hot remove failed for /dev/sda: Device or resource busy
On Tuesday April 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil,
Actually I want to calculate the performance of a RAID5 MD array in rebuild
state.
For doing this I do the following steps:
# mdadm -f /dev/md0 /dev/sda
mdadm: set /dev/sda faulty in /dev/md0
# mdadm -r /dev/md0 /dev/sda
mdadm:
Good day.
I am looking for some information, and hope the readers of this list
might be able to point me in the right direction:
Here is the scenario:
In RAID5 ( or RAID6) when a file is written, some parity data is
created, (by some form of XOR process, I assume), then that parity data
is
Hi Neil,
When I try the following steps on kernel 2.6.16 I am getting the same errors
as on kernel 2.6.15.
# mdadm -Cv /dev/md0 --assume-clean --force --bitmap=/tmp/bitmap.txt
--bitmap-chunk=1024 -l5 -n4 /dev/sd{a,b,c,d}
Array gets created successfully.
# mdadm /dev/md0 -f /dev/sda
mdadm: set
On Tuesday April 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil,
When I try the following steps on kernel 2.6.16 I am getting the same errors
as on kernel 2.6.15.
# mdadm -Cv /dev/md0 --assume-clean --force --bitmap=/tmp/bitmap.txt
--bitmap-chunk=1024 -l5 -n4 /dev/sd{a,b,c,d}
Array gets created
Hi Neil,
Can you provide me details of your setup?
Is there any kernel configuration that I will have to change and build my
kernel with that?
Thanks,
Yogesh
-Original Message-
From: Neil Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:54 PM
To: Yogesh Pahilwan
Cc:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Shai wrote:
I have two SCSI disks on raid1.
Since I have lots of reads from that raid, I want to add two more
disks to this raid so that read will be faster.
How should I add the new disks?
Is this possible with md currently:
Create a RAID-10 on
Andy Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Shai wrote:
I have two SCSI disks on raid1.
Since I have lots of reads from that raid, I want to add two more
disks to this raid so that read will be faster.
How should I add the new disks?
Is this possible with md currently:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 07:25:58PM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote:
Andy Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Shai wrote:
I have two SCSI disks on raid1.
Since I have lots of reads from that raid, I want to add two more
disks to this raid so that read will be faster.
How
Mark Hahn (MH) writes:
MH don't you mean _3_ chunk-sized writes? if so, are you actually
MH asking about the case when you issue an aligned two-stripe write?
MH (which might get broken into 6 64K writes, not sure, rather than
MH three 2-chunk writes...)
actually, yes. I'm talking about 3
Neil Brown (NB) writes:
NB The raid5 code attempts to do this already, though I'm not sure how
NB successful it is. I think it is fairly successful, but not completely
NB successful.
hmm. could you tell me what the code should I look at?
NB There is a trade-off that raid5 has to make.
Hi,
I need help with RAID-0 array. I would not ask it here if I were able to find
information what to do in my case. Ok, the problem. Our datacenter had a
power failure and after that I am trying to bring up all services at one our
server that uses partitioned RAID-0 array for Oracle
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Marc L. de Bruin wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Marc L. de Bruin wrote:
However, all preferred minors are correct, meaning that the output is in
sync with what I expected it to be from /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf.
Any other ideas? Just adding
hey Neil...
i've been wanting to test out the reconstruct-on-read-error code... and
i've had two chances to do so, but haven't be able to force md to read the
appropriate block to trigger the code.
i had two disks with SMART Current_Pending_Sector 0 (which indicates
pending read error) and i
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 20:32 +, Andy Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 07:25:58PM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote:
Andy Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Shai wrote:
I have two SCSI disks on raid1.
Since I have lots of reads from that raid, I want to add two more
hi dean,
dean gaudet wrote:
the other disk was in a raid5 ... 5 disk raid5, so 20% chance of the bad
block being in parity. i copied the kernel code to be sure, and sure
enough the bad block was in parity... just bad luck :) so i can't force a
read there any way that i know of...
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, dean gaudet wrote:
anyhow this made me wonder if there's some other existing trick to force
such reads/reconstructions to occur... or perhaps this might be a useful
future feature.
For testing RAID, what would be really nice is if there were a virtual
disk device where one
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ming Zhang
} Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:13 PM
} To: Andy Smith
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: mdadm + raid1 of 2 disks and now need to add more
}
} On Tue,
On Friday April 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately md lacks the ability to mark an array as
used/busy/you_name_it. Sometime ago I asked on this list for such an
enhancement (see thread with subject Question: array locking,
possible). Although I managed (with great help from few people
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:37:53PM -1000, Julian Cowley wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, dean gaudet wrote:
anyhow this made me wonder if there's some other existing trick to force
such reads/reconstructions to occur... or perhaps this might be a useful
future feature.
For testing RAID, what would
24 matches
Mail list logo
