Hi there,
you're just my last hope - I think.
I've posted this question at many Web-Sites in the last week, but nobody can
help me.
For a view days I've created a Software Raid 5 (mdadm) under Ubuntu 7.10 32Bit
Alternate with 4 x 233 GiB SATA II Hdds @ USB 2.0.
After that I want to create a
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
I guess I will sit down tonight and craft some patches to the existing
md* man pages. Some things are indeed left unsaid.
If you want to be more verbose than a man page allows then there's always the
wiki/FAQ...
http://linux-raid.osdl.org/
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
Is
On 26 Oct 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also suspect that a *lot* of people will assume that the highest superblock
version is the best and should be used for new installs etc.
Grumble... why can't people expect what I want them to expect?
Moshe
Michael Mott wrote:
Hi there,
Hi,
you're just my last hope - I think.
I've posted this question at many Web-Sites in the last week, but nobody can
help me.
For a view days I've created a Software Raid 5 (mdadm) under Ubuntu 7.10 32Bit
Alternate with 4 x 233 GiB SATA II Hdds @ USB 2.0.
David Greaves wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
I expect it's because I used 1.2 superblocks (why
not use the latest, I said, foolishly...) and therefore the RAID10 --
Aha - an 'in the wild' example of why we should deprecate '0.9 1.0 1.1, 1.2' and
rename the superblocks to data-version +
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Due to a very bad idea/error, I zeroed my first GB of /dev/md0.
Now fdisk doesn't find any disk on /dev/md0.
Any idea on how to recover?
MfG,
Lars Schimmer
- --
- -
TU Graz, Institut
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
over the other. For example, I've now learned that if I want to set up a
RAID1 /boot, it must actually be 1.2 or grub won't be able to read it.
(I would therefore argue that if the new version ever becomes default,
then the default sub-version ought to be 1.2.)
In the
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Here's a baseline question: if I create a RAID10 array using default
settings, what do I get? I thought I was getting RAID1+0; am I really?
Maybe you are, depending on your settings, but this is beyond the point.
No matter what 1+0 you have
Lars Schimmer wrote:
Hi!
Due to a very bad idea/error, I zeroed my first GB of /dev/md0.
Now fdisk doesn't find any disk on /dev/md0.
Any idea on how to recover?
It largely depends on what is /dev/md0, and what was on /dev/md0. Provide very
detailed info:
* Was the MD device partitioned?
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
Hmm, I read the Linux raid faq on
http://www.faqs.org/contrib/linux-raid/x37.html
It looks pretty outdated, referring to how to patch 2.2 kernels and
not mentioning new mdadm, nor raid10. It was not dated.
It seemed to be related to the linux-raid list, telling
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Lars Schimmer wrote:
Hi!
Due to a very bad idea/error, I zeroed my first GB of /dev/md0.
Now fdisk doesn't find any disk on /dev/md0.
Any idea on how to recover?
It largely depends on what is /dev/md0, and what was on
Lars Schimmer wrote:
I activate the backup right now - was OpenAFS with some RW volumes -
fairly easy to backup, but...
If it's hard to recover raid data, I recreate the raid and forget the
old data on it.
It is not that hard to recover the raid itself, however the ext3 on top is
most likely
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
over the other. For example, I've now learned that if I want to set up
a RAID1 /boot, it must actually be 1.2 or grub won't be able to read
it. (I would therefore argue that if the new version ever becomes
default, then the default sub-version
Bill Davidsen wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the
location
and
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
[]
Mr. Tokarev wrote:
By the way, on all our systems I use small (256Mb for small-software systems,
sometimes 512M, but 1G should be sufficient) partition for a root filesystem
(/etc, /bin, /sbin, /lib, and /boot), and put it on a raid1 on all...
... doing [it]
this
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
over the other. For example, I've now learned that if I want to set up
a RAID1 /boot, it must actually be 1.2 or grub won't be able to read
it. (I would therefore argue that if the new version ever becomes
default, then the default sub-version
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
[]
Ugh. 2-drive raid10 is effectively just a raid1. I.e, mirroring
without any striping. (Or, backwards, striping without mirroring).
uhm, well, I did not understand: (Or, backwards, striping without
mirroring). I don't think a 2 drive vanilla raid10 will do
David Greaves said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:46:52 +)
http://linux-raid.osdl.org/index.php/Main_Page
great idea! I belive that wikis are the best way to go.
I have written to faqs.org but got no reply. I'll try again...
If I searched on google for raid faq, the first
Michael Tokarev wrote:
You only write to root (including /bin and /lib and so on) during
software (re)install and during some configuration work (writing
/etc/password and the like). First is very infrequent, and both
needs only a few writes, -- so write speed isn't important.
Thanks, but I
Michael Tokarev wrote:
With 5-drive linux raid10:
A B C D E
0 0 1 1 2
2 3 3 4 4
5 5 6 6 7
7 8 8 9 9
10 10 11 11 12
...
AB can't be removed - 0, 5. AC CAN be removed, as
are AD. But not AE - losing 2 and 7. And so on.
I stand corrected by Michael,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
With 5-drive linux raid10:
A B C D E
0 0 1 1 2
2 3 3 4 4
5 5 6 6 7
7 8 8 9 9
10 10 11 11 12
...
AB can't be removed - 0, 5. AC CAN be removed, as
are
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
My mind boggles. I know how to mount an ISO as a loop device onto the
file system, but if you'd be so kind, can you give a super-brief
description on how to get a loop device to look like an actual partition
that can be made into a RAID array? I can see this
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote:
With 5-drive linux raid10:
A B C D E
0 0 1 1 2
2 3 3 4 4
5 5 6 6 7
7 8 8 9 9
10 10 11 11 12
...
AB can't be removed - 0, 5. AC CAN be removed,
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
It seems like it. I just created the above raid configuration with 5
loop devices. Everything behaved just like Michael described. When the
wrong drives disappeared - I started getting IO errors.
My mind boggles. I know how to mount an ISO as a loop device onto the
Hello,
Yes, I know that some levels give faster reading and slower writing, etc.
I want to talk here about a typical workstation usage: compiling
stuff (like kernel), editing openoffice docs, browsing web, reading
email (email: I have a webdir format, and in boost mailing list
directory I have
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:21:33PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Hello,
Yes, I know that some levels give faster reading and slower writing, etc.
I want to talk here about a typical workstation usage: compiling
stuff (like kernel), editing openoffice docs, browsing web, reading
email
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
According to man md(4), the o2 is likely to offer the best
combination of read and write performance. Why would you consider f2
instead?
f2 is faster for read, most systems spend more time reading than
writing.
According to md(4), offset should
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:44:20PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Depending on near/far choices, raid10 should be faster than raid5,
with far read should be quite a bit faster. You can't boot off
raid10, and if you put your swap on it many
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:07 +0100)
Teoretically, raid0 and raid10,f2 should be the same for reading, given the
same size of the md partition, etc. For writing, raid10,f2 should be half the
speed of
raid0. This should go both for sequential and
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:32:46PM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
I reformatted the disks in preparation to my move to a RAID1/RAID5
combination. I couldn't --stop the array (that should have told me
something), so I removed ARRAY from mdadm.conf and restarted. I ran
fdisk to create the
I reformatted the disks in preparation to my move to a RAID1/RAID5
combination. I couldn't --stop the array (that should have told me
something), so I removed ARRAY from mdadm.conf and restarted. I ran
fdisk to create the proper partitions, and then I removed the /dev/md*
and /dev/md/* entries
Hello linux-raid.
i have DEBIAN.
raid01:/# mdadm -V
mdadm - v2.6.4 - 19th October 2007
raid01:/# mdadm -D /dev/md1
/dev/md1:
Version : 00.91.03
Creation Time : Tue Nov 13 18:42:36 2007
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 1465159488 (1397.29 GiB 1500.32 GB)
Used Dev Size :
On Jan 30, 2008 2:06 PM, Richard Scobie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hda has failed and after spending some time with a rescue disk mounting
hdc's /boot partition (hdc1) and changing the grub.conf device
parameters, I have no success in booting off it.
I then set them back to the original (hd0,0)
maximilian attems wrote:
pretty simple, you change mdadm.conf put it also on initramfs:
update-initramfs -u -k all
Sure, that's what I did after boot on rescue, chroot, etc. However, I
wonder if the *documentation* -- Wiki, or even the man page discussion
on boot -- should mention that
David Rees wrote:
Have you tried re-running grub-install after booting from a rescue disk?
-Dave
Hi David,
I have but although I can advance further it seems that the BIOS is
doing some strange things as well, switching drive ordering around.
With a new hda installed and partitioned,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen said: (by the date of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:00:07 +0100)
Teoretically, raid0 and raid10,f2 should be the same for reading, given the
same size of the md partition, etc. For writing, raid10,f2 should be half
A followup for the archives:
I found this document very useful:
http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2003-July/008898.html
After modifying my grub.conf to refer to (hd0,0), reinstalling grub on
hdc with:
grub device (hd0) /dev/hdc
grub root (hd0,0)
grub (hd0)
and rebooting
David Rees wrote:
FWIW, this step is clearly marked in the Software-RAID HOWTO under
Booting on RAID:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-7.html#ss7.3
The one place I didn't look...
BTW, I suspect you are missing the command setup from your 3rd
command above, it should be:
# grub
On Jan 30, 2008 6:33 PM, Richard Scobie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found this document very useful:
http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2003-July/008898.html
After modifying my grub.conf to refer to (hd0,0), reinstalling grub on
hdc with:
grub device (hd0) /dev/hdc
grub root
39 matches
Mail list logo
