On pią, paź 01, 1999 at 09:59:56 -0400, David Cooley wrote:
> At 03:41 PM 10/1/1999 +0200, you wrote:
> >hello, i am trying to establish a raid0 array on my two ide disks,
> >but:
> >
> >[root@serek ~]# mkraid --really-force /dev/md0
> >DESTROYING the contents of /dev/md0 in 5 seconds, Ctrl-C if unsure!
> >handling MD device /dev/md0
> >analyzing super-block
> >disk 0: /dev/hdc1, 26588488kB, raid superblock at 26588416kB
> >disk 1: /dev/hdd1, 26588488kB, raid superblock at 26588416kB
> >mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues.
> >
> >[root@serek ~]# cat /proc/mdstat
> >Personalities : [1 linear] [2 raid0]
> >read_ahead not set
> >md0 : inactive
> >md1 : inactive
> >md2 : inactive
> >md3 : inactive
> >
> >what does mean "read_ahead not set"? i am rather sure that everything
> >with my disks is all right.
>
> Read_ahead not set is normal when there are no MD devices active...
> Check the /etc/raidtab, I've found this error occurs when you try to use a
> chunk size smaller than 16.
here is my /etc/raidtab:
----------------------------------------------------------------
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 0 # it's not obvious but this *must* be
# right after raiddev
persistent-superblock 1 # set this to 1 if you want autostart,
# BUT SETTING TO 1 WILL DESTROY PREVIOUS
# CONTENTS if this is a RAID0 array created
# by older raidtools (0.40-0.51) or mdtools!
chunk-size 16
nr-raid-disks 2
nr-spare-disks 0
device /dev/hdc1
raid-disk 0
device /dev/hdd1
raid-disk 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
when i set chunk to eg. 32, it does not matter... :-(
i think that my disks has read_ahead on:
[root@serek ~]# hdparm /dev/hdc
/dev/hdc:
multcount = 0 (off)
I/O support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
nowerr = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 8 (on)
geometry = 52755/16/63, sectors = 53177040, start = 0
thanks for fast answer, but it does not help... :-((
sergiusz
--
http://pl.qmail.org/~ser/ | on_irc: serek at #serek | icq#27579212
__________________________________________________________________
I'd rather have two girls at 21 each than one girl at 42.
-- W.C. Fields
