On Dec 7 2007 07:30, Nix wrote:
On 6 Dec 2007, Jan Engelhardt verbalised:
On Dec 5 2007 19:29, Nix wrote:
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
Hello Neil,
On Friday 07 December 2007 03:10:37 Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday December 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
here is the second version of the patch. With this version also on
setting /sys/block/*/md/sync_force_parallel the sync_thread is woken up.
Though, I still don't
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:31:14PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
BTW: if this can be done in a user program, mdadm, rather than by code in
the kernel, that might well make everyone happy. Okay, realistically less
unhappy.
I start to like the idea. Of course you can't repair a running array
Michael Makuch wrote:
I realize this is the developers list and though I am a developer I'm
not a developer
of linux raid, but I can find no other source of answers to these questions:
Don't worry; it's a user list too.
$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md0 :
... and all access to array hangs indefinitely, resulting in unkillable zombie
processes. Have to hard reboot the machine. Any thoughts on the matter?
===
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1]
md1 : active raid1 sde1[6](F) sdg1[1] sdb1[4] sdd1[3] sdc1[2]
488383936 blocks [6/4]
man md
man mdadm
I use RAID6. Happy with it so far, but haven't had a disk failure yet.
RAID5 sucks because if you have 1 failed disk and 1 bad block on any other
disk, you are hosed.
Hope that helps.
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL
I realize this is the developers list and though I am a developer I'm
not a developer
of linux raid, but I can find no other source of answers to these questions:
I've been using linux software raid (5) for a couple of years, having
recently uped
to the 2.6.23 kernel (FC7, was previously on
