Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
[]
But that's *exactly* what I have -- well, 5GB -- and which failed. I've
modified /etc/fstab system to use data=journal (even on root, which I
thought wasn't supposed to work without a grub option!) and I can
power-cycle the system and bring it up reliably afterwards.
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:34:54AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
I understand that lilo and grub only can boot partitions that look like
a normal single-drive partition. And then I understand that a plain
raid10 has a layout which is equivalent to raid1. Can such a raid10
partition be used
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
[]
But that's *exactly* what I have -- well, 5GB -- and which failed. I've
modified /etc/fstab system to use data=journal (even on root, which I
thought wasn't supposed to work without a grub option!) and I can
power-cycle the system and bring it up
Robin, thanks for the explanation. I have a further question.
Robin Hill wrote:
Once the file system is mounted then hdX,Y maps according to the
device.map file (which may actually bear no resemblance to the drive
order at boot - I've had issues with this before). At boot time it maps
to the
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:17:35AM +, Robin Hill wrote:
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:34:54AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
I understand that lilo and grub only can boot partitions that look like
a normal single-drive partition. And then I understand that a plain
raid10 has a layout
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
[]
If I'm reading the man pages, Wikis, READMEs and mailing lists correctly
-- not necessarily the case -- the ext3 file system uses the equivalent
of data=journal as a default.
ext3 defaults to data=ordered, not data=journal. ext2 doesn't have
journal at all.
The
Eric,
Thanks very much for your note. I'm becoming very leery of resiserfs at
the moment... I'm about to run another series of crash tests.
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Why avoid XFS entirely?
esandeen, any comments here?
Heh; well, it's the meme.
Well, yeah...
Note also
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that current the most
reliable fs in its default configuration, in terms of protection against
power-loss scenarios, is XFS?
I wouldn't go that far without some real-world poweroff testing, because
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:56:01AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
I found a sentence in the HOWTO:
raid1 and raid 10 always writes all data to all disks
I think this is wrong for raid10.
eg
a raid10,f2 of 4 disks only writes to two
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:53:51AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
This is intended for the linux raid howto. Please give comments.
It is not fully ready /keld
Howto prepare for a failing disk
6. /etc/mdadm.conf
Something here on
John Stoffel wrote:
[]
C'mon, how many of you are programmed to believe that 1.2 is better
than 1.0? But when they're not different, just just different
placements, then it's confusing.
Speaking of more is better thing...
There were quite a few bugs fixed in recent months wrt version 1
David 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
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Unfortunately an UPS does not *really* help here. Because unless
it has control program which properly shuts system down on the loss
of input power, and the battery really has the capacity to power the
system while it's shutting down (anyone tested this? With new UPS?
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that current the most
reliable fs in its default configuration, in terms of protection against
power-loss scenarios, is XFS?
I wouldn't go that far without some real-world poweroff testing, because
various fs's are
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:21:40PM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:17:35AM +, Robin Hill wrote:
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:34:54AM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
I understand that lilo and grub only can boot partitions that look like
a normal
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:06:09AM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Robin, thanks for the explanation. I have a further question.
Robin Hill wrote:
Once the file system is mounted then hdX,Y maps according to the
device.map file (which may actually bear no resemblance to the drive
order at
Good morning.
Quoting Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday February 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Summarizing, I have two questions about the behavior of Linux md with
slow devices:
1. Is it possible to modify some kind of time-out parameter on the
mdadm tool so the slow device wouldn't
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
[]
If I'm reading the man pages, Wikis, READMEs and mailing lists correctly
-- not necessarily the case -- the ext3 file system uses the equivalent
of data=journal as a default.
ext3 defaults to data=ordered, not
Eric Sandeen wrote:
[]
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls
and note that recent fixes have been made in this area (also noted in
the faq)
Also - the above all assumes that when a drive says it's written/flushed
data, that it truly has. Modern write-caching drives can wreak
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Why avoid XFS entirely?
esandeen, any comments here?
Heh; well, it's the meme.
see:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls
and note that recent fixes have been made in this area (also noted in
the faq)
Actually, continue reading
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Why avoid XFS entirely?
esandeen, any comments here?
Heh; well, it's the meme.
see:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls
and note that recent fixes have been made in this area (also noted in
the faq)
Also - the above all assumes that when a drive says it's
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 02:59:44PM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Problem: on reboot, the I get an error message:
root (hd0,1) (Moshe comment: as expected)
Filesystem type is xfs, partition type 0xfd (Moshe comment: as expected)
kernel /boot/vmliuz-etc.-amd64 root=/dev/md/boot ro
Error
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:59:44PM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
I've managed to get myself into a little problem.
Since power hits were taking out the /boot partition, I decided to split
/boot out of root. Working from my emergency partition, I copied all files
from /root, re-partitioned
Robin Hill wrote:
File not found at that point would suggest it can't find the kernel
file. The path here should be relative to the root of the partition
/boot is on, so if your /boot is its own partition then you should
either use kernel /vmlinuz or (the more usual solution from what
I've
maximilian attems wrote:
error 15 is an *grub* error.
grub is known for it's dislike of xfs, so with this whole setup use ext3
rerun grub-install and you should be fine.
I should mention that something *did* change. When attempting to use
XFS, grub would give me a note about 18 partitions
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
[]
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls
and note that recent fixes have been made in this area (also noted in
the faq)
Also - the above all assumes that when a drive says it's written/flushed
data, that it truly has.
On Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:59:44PM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
I've managed to get myself into a little problem.
Since power hits were taking out the /boot partition, I decided to split
/boot out of root. Working from my emergency partition, I copied all files
from /root, re-partitioned
Seems the other topic wasn't quite clear...
Occasionally a disk is kicked for being non-fresh - what does this mean and
what causes it?
Dex
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+++ L+++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@
I've managed to get myself into a little problem.
Since power hits were taking out the /boot partition, I decided to split
/boot out of root. Working from my emergency partition, I copied all
files from /root, re-partitioned what had been /root into room for /boot
and /root, and then created
On Monday February 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
[multipath] [faulty]
md1 : active raid5 sdc[0] sdb[5](S) sdf[3] sde[2] sdd[1]
1465159488 blocks super 0.91 level 5, 64k
I wrote:
Now it's failed in a different section and complains that it can't find
/sbin/init. I'm at the (initramfs) prompt, which I don't ever recall
seeing before. I can't mount /dev/md/root on any mount points (invalid
arguments even though I'm not supplying any). I've checked /dev/md/root
On Monday February 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems the other topic wasn't quite clear...
not necessarily. sometimes it helps to repeat your question. there
is a lot of noise on the internet and somethings important things get
missed... :-)
Occasionally a disk is kicked for being non-fresh
32 matches
Mail list logo
