Re: Raid controller support
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 11:26:23AM +0200, Kenny du Toit wrote: > Hi there > > I would like to install FReebsd with a raid controller card. Can you tell me > if these two cards are supported: > > 1. Intel RAID Controller SRCSASRB This should work with the mfi(4) driver, since it uses a 'LSI Logic 1078', according to http://www.intel.com/Products/Server/RAID-controllers/SRCSASRB/SRCSASRB-specifications.htm > 2. Promise EX 8650 According to http://www.promise.com/support/download_file.aspx?rsn=553&m=406®ion=fr-FR it should work. There are drivers available for download here: http://firstweb.promise.com/support/download/download2_eng.asp?category=all&os=100&productID=205 Latest is for 7.1, though, and it is binary only. :-( Better skip this one... Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpmmoXZghihP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Raid
2010/2/22 Nick Mackowski : > Hi I have a Hp Pavillion dv8 with dual sata drives. What program do I need > to raid this thing. I installed a second hard drive after I bought it.. I > am not sure what I need. > Hi Nick http://lantech.geekvenue.net/chucktips/jason/chuck/1175552464/index_html Regards. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Raid
Hey Nick Have you read the handbook which is a good starting point for most questions: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/geom-mirror.html On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Nick Mackowski wrote: > Hi I have a Hp Pavillion dv8 with dual sata drives. What program do I need > to raid this thing. I installed a second hard drive after I bought it.. I > am not sure what I need. > > Thanks, Nick > > > > E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514) > Database version: 6.14410 > http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID 1 failure
Well...Well..Well My server now is back to normal..Mirror is now working..Finally.wwww But thanks to all of your reply guys..this list is really great. and thanks also to this post.. http://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/01/24/freebsd-howto-gmirror-system/ cause i get some idea there and solve my 3 days proble...hehhehe thanks again guys,, FreeBSD Rocks all the time... On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Ruel Luchavez wrote: > *well its a typo..sory list...* > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Polytropon wrote: > >> Maybe it's a typo in the mail, but two things look stange >> to me: >> >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:21:17 +0800, Ruel Luchavez >> wrote: >> > BUT when i type a command >> > #mount /dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mt >> >^ ^^ > * the correct one i issue >#mount /dev/mirror/gmos1a /mnt* > >*then I get no error anymore, then I follow the remaining steps of > "Johan Hendriks" >after the machine rebooted..my problem is still there...:( > >Any more idea??* > > >> > mount:dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mnt:unknown special file or file system >> ^ ^^^ >> *this is the machine replied to me after my typo* > > > >> >> Is this intended? Or just a typo in the reproduction? >> >> >> >> > I get this error: >> > >> > fstab:/etc/fstab:0: No such file or directory >> > fstab:/etc/fstab:0 No such file or directory >> >> [...] >> >> > when I go to the directory /dev/mirror then issue ls, heres the filename >> > inside the directory >> > >> > gmo >> > gmos1 >> > gmos1a >> > gmos1b >> > gmos1c >> > gmos1d >> > gmos1e >> > gmss1f >> > >> > I think there is a miss type (typo) in my part during I followed the HOW >> > TO,in which incase of writing 0 i wrote letter "o"..am I write? >> >> Yes, looks like... >> >> >> >> -- >> Polytropon >> From Magdeburg, Germany >> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 >> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... >> > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID 1 failure
*well its a typo..sory list...* On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Polytropon wrote: > Maybe it's a typo in the mail, but two things look stange > to me: > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:21:17 +0800, Ruel Luchavez > wrote: > > BUT when i type a command > > #mount /dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mt > ^ ^^ * the correct one i issue #mount /dev/mirror/gmos1a /mnt* *then I get no error anymore, then I follow the remaining steps of "Johan Hendriks" after the machine rebooted..my problem is still there...:( Any more idea??* > > mount:dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mnt:unknown special file or file system > ^ ^^^ > *this is the machine replied to me after my typo* > > Is this intended? Or just a typo in the reproduction? > > > > > I get this error: > > > > fstab:/etc/fstab:0: No such file or directory > > fstab:/etc/fstab:0 No such file or directory > > [...] > > > when I go to the directory /dev/mirror then issue ls, heres the filename > > inside the directory > > > > gmo > > gmos1 > > gmos1a > > gmos1b > > gmos1c > > gmos1d > > gmos1e > > gmss1f > > > > I think there is a miss type (typo) in my part during I followed the HOW > > TO,in which incase of writing 0 i wrote letter "o"..am I write? > > Yes, looks like... > > > > -- > Polytropon > From Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID 1 failure
Maybe it's a typo in the mail, but two things look stange to me: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:21:17 +0800, Ruel Luchavez wrote: > BUT when i type a command > #mount /dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mt ^ ^^ > mount:dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mnt:unknown special file or file system ^ ^^^ Is this intended? Or just a typo in the reproduction? > I get this error: > > fstab:/etc/fstab:0: No such file or directory > fstab:/etc/fstab:0 No such file or directory [...] > when I go to the directory /dev/mirror then issue ls, heres the filename > inside the directory > > gmo > gmos1 > gmos1a > gmos1b > gmos1c > gmos1d > gmos1e > gmss1f > > I think there is a miss type (typo) in my part during I followed the HOW > TO,in which incase of writing 0 i wrote letter "o"..am I write? Yes, looks like... -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID 1 failure
hello Adam Unfortunately, when I boot the machine I can't see the boot menu, Unlike with my other machine running version 7.0 ang 6.0 FreeBSD there is a boot menu but with this 7.1 reelase no boot menu showed up. Any idea? Thanks... On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Adam Vandemore wrote: > Ruel Luchavez wrote: > >> Hello.. >> >> Hope there is some one out here can fix my problem. >> >> I have fresh installed FreeBSD 7.1 on my IBM system X3100 server (2 160GB >> hard drive), I have decided to do a RAID1 by using the steps >> on the handbook : >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/geom-mirror.html >> >> as the site stated you have to enable the loading of the geom_mirror.ko >> kernel module during the system intialization >> by putting >> >> #echo 'geom_mirror_load="YES"' >> /boot/loader.conf >> >> UNFORTUNATELY, I forgot that steps now I'm facing a problem how to correct >> it where in after I restart the machine the system refuse to boot, I'm >> stack on this loading: >> >> F1 FreeBSD >> F5 Drive 1 >> >> Default:F1 >> >> BTX loader 1.00 BTX version is 1.02 >> Consoles: Internal video/keyboard >> Bios drive C: is disk 0 >> Bios drive D: is disk 1 >> Bios 631KB/2094592KB available memory >> >> FreeBSD i386 bootstrap loader, Revision 1.1 >> (r...@logan.case.buffalo.edu Thu Jan 1 09:55:10 UTC 2009) >> Loading /boot/defaults/loader.cof >> >> >> >> Do you have any idea how to do it? >> Hope there is.. >> > You can load gmirror from the loader prompt as well. Option 6 from the > boot menu I believe. ? will give list of exact commands. You should enter > something like this: > > load geom_mirror > boot > > then edit loader.conf after system is up. > > > -- > Adam Vandemore > Systems Administrator > IMED Mobility > (605) 498-1610 > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID 1 failure
Hi..I followed what Johan Henriks post BUT when i type a command #mount /dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mt I get this error: fstab:/etc/fstab:0: No such file or directory fstab:/etc/fstab:0 No such file or directory mount:dev/mirror/gm0s1a/mnt:unknown special file or file system when I go to the directory /dev/mirror then issue ls, heres the filename inside the directory gmo gmos1 gmos1a gmos1b gmos1c gmos1d gmos1e gmss1f I think there is a miss type (typo) in my part during I followed the HOW TO,in which incase of writing 0 i wrote letter "o"..am I write? but how do i resolve this? Thanks for the reply... FreeBSd ROcks all the time 2009/3/18 Johan Hendriks > You could download the live cd > > Start the computer and insert the boot cd. > After it is done with booting select the option fixit and then Live cd. > > It will ask for the live cd. > > Then do the following > > # chroot /dist > # mount_devfs devfs /dev > From version FreeBSD 7 You miust use mount -t devfs devfs /dev > > # gmirror load > > In the following command replace gm0 and s1a to the name of your mirror and > the name of your / slice. > If you followed the howto it should be as follows > > # mount /dev/mirror/gm0s1a /mnt > > # ee /mnt/boot/loader.conf > Now you can edit the loader.conf file on your mirror. > > So add the line: > geom_mirror_load="YES" > > now exit ee and exit the livecd > # exit > # exit > > Shutdown the installer, and reboot your system. > > Regards, > Johan Hendriks > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.18/2008 - Release Date: 03/17/09 > 16:25:00 > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: RAID 1 failure
You could download the live cd Start the computer and insert the boot cd. After it is done with booting select the option fixit and then Live cd. It will ask for the live cd. Then do the following # chroot /dist # mount_devfs devfs /dev >From version FreeBSD 7 You miust use mount -t devfs devfs /dev # gmirror load In the following command replace gm0 and s1a to the name of your mirror and the name of your / slice. If you followed the howto it should be as follows # mount /dev/mirror/gm0s1a /mnt # ee /mnt/boot/loader.conf Now you can edit the loader.conf file on your mirror. So add the line: geom_mirror_load="YES" now exit ee and exit the livecd # exit # exit Shutdown the installer, and reboot your system. Regards, Johan Hendriks No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.18/2008 - Release Date: 03/17/09 16:25:00 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID 1 failure
#echo 'geom_mirror_load="YES"' >> /boot/loader.conf UNFORTUNATELY, I forgot that steps now I'm facing a problem how to correct it where in after I restart the machine the system refuse to boot, I'm stack on this loading: F1 FreeBSD F5 Drive 1 Default:F1 BTX loader 1.00 BTX version is 1.02 Consoles: Internal video/keyboard Bios drive C: is disk 0 Bios drive D: is disk 1 Bios 631KB/2094592KB available memory FreeBSD i386 bootstrap loader, Revision 1.1 (r...@logan.case.buffalo.edu Thu Jan 1 09:55:10 UTC 2009) Loading /boot/defaults/loader.cof Do you have any idea how to do it? Hope there is... could you please tell exactly how your gmirror is configured? as whole drive mirror or partition? and please tell how disk is labeled/partitioned ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID-5
just because it's not part of FreeBSD. why - i don't know On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Peter wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: unpack tar.gz, compile, load kernel module and use graid5 tool :) I was going to say initially "I feel like I am back in Linux - no ports, download compile, test :-))", However looking at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html, I started to think that maybe for the first time I hit a problem which is better documented in Linux. Very strange...:-) Anyway, thanks for all your help :-) Peter ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID-5
Wojciech Puchar wrote: > unpack tar.gz, compile, load kernel module and use graid5 tool :) > I was going to say initially "I feel like I am back in Linux - no ports, download compile, test :-))", However looking at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html, I started to think that maybe for the first time I hit a problem which is better documented in Linux. Very strange...:-) Anyway, thanks for all your help :-) Peter ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID-5
unpack tar.gz, compile, load kernel module and use graid5 tool :) On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Peter wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: search geom_raid5 in google. i don't know why it's not yet integrated in FreeBSD. I did search even earlier today, but all I got was wikipedia article + some forums posts with some patches(nothing like ports or anything). any tutorial, howto, help will be highly appreciated...Even a small without details step by step action plan will do it :-)) Peter ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID-5
Wojciech Puchar wrote: > search geom_raid5 in google. > > i don't know why it's not yet integrated in FreeBSD. > I did search even earlier today, but all I got was wikipedia article + some forums posts with some patches(nothing like ports or anything). any tutorial, howto, help will be highly appreciated...Even a small without details step by step action plan will do it :-)) Peter ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID-5
search geom_raid5 in google. i don't know why it's not yet integrated in FreeBSD. it works On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Peter wrote: hello, What is the easiest way to achieve RAID-5 in freebsd aprt for Vinum ? I plan to use 1 x 250 GB (no mirroring) + 3 x 1.5 TB in RAID 5 Is there any tutorial about it ? Handbook does not look very promising :-) Peter ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two
What branch is this patch supposed to apply against? I've tried 7.0-RELEASE and 7.1-RELEASE, and judging by the dates involved, it's somewhere in between the two. Or should I be asking this on the freebsd-hackers list, where that patch was originally posted? Alex Alex, This is known problem with FreeBSD and ICH7..ICH8..ICH9 chipsets. There is a patch for it: http://www.nabble.com/Vital-Patches-for-ataraid-with-Intel-Matrix-RAID-(ICH7)-td16179257.html I though didn't test the patch, and funny thing, I posted earlier today asking if anyone had tried out that patch. Hope this helps, keep me posted if you're able to bring it online. Thanks, Tamouh -Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Alex Kirk Sent: March 1, 2009 8:20 PM To: Jamie Cc: questi...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two >> Does anyone have a clue how I can fix this, preferably while >> retaining my data? I could wipe the box if necessary, but I'd really >> prefer not to, as that would be a huge pain in the butt. > >> Thanks, >> Alex Kirk > > > > >I would begin by going into the raid BIOS at bootup to see what > containers are now configured. If everything is hosed up in there the > OS isn't going to be able to fix anything. > > > - Jamie > Sorry, should have already gone over this. The RAID BIOS is terrible - my options are "Create Array", "Delete Array", "Reset Disk States", and "Exit". It shows only the one array, but all four disks show as Offline Member in red there. I'm just concerned that if I reset the array or delete it, the state table (or whatever other magic is involved in making RAID work) will get hosed up and the data will be unrecoverable. Alex This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two
2009/3/2 Alex Kirk : > This is why I love open-source mailing lists - you never know what sort of > awesome you'll find! > > My question at this point, though, is how in the world I could actually > apply this patch, seeing as how the system is in a non-bootable state. Is > this something that's already been included in a development branch that I > could go download? Or do I need to do something else? > What I'd do is: make a distribution with the patch included in the source tree on another machine with your current KERNCONF, etc if you have backups of them. Then try reinstalling the machine and if backups are on your side all should be OK. I don't follow -current and -hackers much to advise if it has been fixed upstream. If you have another machine where you can check-out current tree and see if patch has been merged there - good. Regards, Dimitar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two
Alex, This is known problem with FreeBSD and ICH7..ICH8..ICH9 chipsets. There is a patch for it: http://www.nabble.com/Vital-Patches-for-ataraid-with-Intel-Matrix-RAID-(ICH7)-td16179257.html I though didn't test the patch, and funny thing, I posted earlier today asking if anyone had tried out that patch. Hope this helps, keep me posted if you're able to bring it online. Thanks, Tamouh > -Original Message- > From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Alex Kirk > Sent: March 1, 2009 8:20 PM > To: Jamie > Cc: questi...@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two > > >> Does anyone have a clue how I can fix this, preferably while > >> retaining my data? I could wipe the box if necessary, but > I'd really > >> prefer not to, as that would be a huge pain in the butt. > > > >> Thanks, > >> Alex Kirk > > > > > > > > > >I would begin by going into the raid BIOS at bootup to see what > > containers are now configured. If everything is hosed up in > there the > > OS isn't going to be able to fix anything. > > > > > > - Jamie > > > > Sorry, should have already gone over this. > > The RAID BIOS is terrible - my options are "Create Array", "Delete > Array", "Reset Disk States", and "Exit". It shows only the > one array, > but all four disks show as Offline Member in red there. I'm just > concerned that if I reset the array or delete it, the state > table (or > whatever other magic is involved in making RAID work) will get hosed > up and the data will be unrecoverable. > > Alex > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two
This is why I love open-source mailing lists - you never know what sort of awesome you'll find! My question at this point, though, is how in the world I could actually apply this patch, seeing as how the system is in a non-bootable state. Is this something that's already been included in a development branch that I could go download? Or do I need to do something else? Thanks, Alex Alex, This is known problem with FreeBSD and ICH7..ICH8..ICH9 chipsets. There is a patch for it: http://www.nabble.com/Vital-Patches-for-ataraid-with-Intel-Matrix-RAID-(ICH7)-td16179257.html I though didn't test the patch, and funny thing, I posted earlier today asking if anyone had tried out that patch. Hope this helps, keep me posted if you're able to bring it online. Thanks, Tamouh -Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Alex Kirk Sent: March 1, 2009 8:20 PM To: Jamie Cc: questi...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two >> Does anyone have a clue how I can fix this, preferably while >> retaining my data? I could wipe the box if necessary, but I'd really >> prefer not to, as that would be a huge pain in the butt. > >> Thanks, >> Alex Kirk > > > > >I would begin by going into the raid BIOS at bootup to see what > containers are now configured. If everything is hosed up in there the > OS isn't going to be able to fix anything. > > > - Jamie > Sorry, should have already gone over this. The RAID BIOS is terrible - my options are "Create Array", "Delete Array", "Reset Disk States", and "Exit". It shows only the one array, but all four disks show as Offline Member in red there. I'm just concerned that if I reset the array or delete it, the state table (or whatever other magic is involved in making RAID work) will get hosed up and the data will be unrecoverable. Alex This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two
Does anyone have a clue how I can fix this, preferably while retaining my data? I could wipe the box if necessary, but I'd really prefer not to, as that would be a huge pain in the butt. Thanks, Alex Kirk I would begin by going into the raid BIOS at bootup to see what containers are now configured. If everything is hosed up in there the OS isn't going to be able to fix anything. - Jamie Sorry, should have already gone over this. The RAID BIOS is terrible - my options are "Create Array", "Delete Array", "Reset Disk States", and "Exit". It shows only the one array, but all four disks show as Offline Member in red there. I'm just concerned that if I reset the array or delete it, the state table (or whatever other magic is involved in making RAID work) will get hosed up and the data will be unrecoverable. Alex This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: RAID Gone Wild - One Array Split Into Two
Does anyone have a clue how I can fix this, preferably while retaining my data? I could wipe the box if necessary, but I'd really prefer not to, as that would be a huge pain in the butt. Thanks, Alex Kirk I would begin by going into the raid BIOS at bootup to see what containers are now configured. If everything is hosed up in there the OS isn't going to be able to fix anything. - Jamie ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: raid tool
If you replace "raid5" with "redundancy and n-1 capacity" then you could also look at geom_raid3, which is much simpler to configure than gvinum and slower with random reads. if he needs it for large files, then it's excellent. and also part of the base system. Additionally, FreeBSD 7.x has experimental support for ZFS (again in the base system and not in ports). That includes raidz, which is designed to have all of the good features of raid5 and none of the bad. it gives performance of raid3 rather than raid5. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid tool
New to BSD, Using FreeBSD 7. I need to build a test fileserver, but I want it to use Raid 5. Googling says I must use vinum. there is geom_raid5 available but not integrated with FreeBSD google,download,compile,use Looking in the ports I see its not available. The links / sites google suggests were moderately old, so my question is, whats the tool for raid? TIA Regards Brent Clark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid tool
> Thanks for this. I was looking at ZFS and I am impress with what I read, > unfortunately no AMD 64 and I only have 1Gig Ram. I can tell you I'm using ZFS on an i386 desktop with 1 GB RAM and it is working flawlessly after some tuning, more specifically: # For ZFS vm.kmem_size="521M" vm.kmem_size_max="512M" vfs.zfs.arc_min="16M" vfs.zfs.arc_max="64M" vfs.zfs.vdev.cache.size="5M" vfs.zfs.debug=1 vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" in /boot/loader.conf.local Today it finished the compilation openoffice.org-alllangs-3.0.0 successfully (after 1 day and 14:42:21). Before tuning the options I have, there were some problems and the machine used to hang after some 3 or 4 hours of compilation but from the moment I added the options on I didn't have a single crash of the machine. So maybe you could still give it a try...? (-; Michal Petrucha > Thanks again. > > Regards > Brent Clark -- (-K JohnNy alias Partial Derivative ∂ [home] http://johnny64.fixinko.sk/ [icq] 338328204 [abandoned] [jabber] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [skype] JohnNy64-konik [abandoned] pgpuT92bE44X9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: raid tool
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:19:29PM +0200, Brent Clark wrote: > John Nielsen wrote: >> If you replace "raid5" with "redundancy and n-1 capacity" then you >> could also look at geom_raid3, which is much simpler to configure than >> gvinum and also part of the base system. Additionally, FreeBSD 7.x has >> experimental support for ZFS (again in the base system and not in >> ports). That includes raidz, which is designed to have all of the good >> features of raid5 and none of the bad. I use it and it works well but >> you will need to do some reading and some manual tuning of your system. >> You'll also want a system with plenty of RAM and preferrably running >> FreeBSD-amd64 (vs FreeBSD-i386). >> >> If you want to look in to RAID1 or RAID1+0 see geom_mirror and >> geom_stripe, also in the base system. >> >> JN > > Hiya > > Thanks for this. I was looking at ZFS and I am impress with what I read, > unfortunately no AMD 64 and I only have 1Gig Ram. You can use ZFS on i386 and with 1GB RAM. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid tool
John Nielsen wrote: If you replace "raid5" with "redundancy and n-1 capacity" then you could also look at geom_raid3, which is much simpler to configure than gvinum and also part of the base system. Additionally, FreeBSD 7.x has experimental support for ZFS (again in the base system and not in ports). That includes raidz, which is designed to have all of the good features of raid5 and none of the bad. I use it and it works well but you will need to do some reading and some manual tuning of your system. You'll also want a system with plenty of RAM and preferrably running FreeBSD-amd64 (vs FreeBSD-i386). If you want to look in to RAID1 or RAID1+0 see geom_mirror and geom_stripe, also in the base system. JN Hiya Thanks for this. I was looking at ZFS and I am impress with what I read, unfortunately no AMD 64 and I only have 1Gig Ram. Thanks again. Regards Brent Clark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid tool
On Monday 03 November 2008 09:19:45 am Brent Clark wrote: > New to BSD, Using FreeBSD 7. > I need to build a test fileserver, but I want it to use Raid 5. > Googling says I must use vinum. You have a few options, but strictly speaking the best-supported way to do RAID5 in FreeBSD is to use gvinum (vinum's GEOM-ified successor). It is part of the base system and not in ports. There is also an unofficial geom_raid5 module, but last I was aware it still had some issues (and you'd have to grab the source and built it manually). > Looking in the ports I see its not available. The links / sites google > suggests were moderately old, so my question is, whats the tool for > raid? If you replace "raid5" with "redundancy and n-1 capacity" then you could also look at geom_raid3, which is much simpler to configure than gvinum and also part of the base system. Additionally, FreeBSD 7.x has experimental support for ZFS (again in the base system and not in ports). That includes raidz, which is designed to have all of the good features of raid5 and none of the bad. I use it and it works well but you will need to do some reading and some manual tuning of your system. You'll also want a system with plenty of RAM and preferrably running FreeBSD-amd64 (vs FreeBSD-i386). If you want to look in to RAID1 or RAID1+0 see geom_mirror and geom_stripe, also in the base system. JN ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
2008/10/15 Nejc Skoberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hello, > > > the drives to the other machine and try to make them online again. Do you > > think I should try? > > If I were you, I would first buy/get a XXX GB SATA drive, create a > filesystem there > and copy all three disks block-by-block as three separate files (which will > be > the size of the disks). This way you'll still have the backup of your > screwed up > drives somewhere in case something goes even more wrong. > > However, I don't think your data is *physically* lost. I am almost sure > that it > is still on that drives, only the metadata could be fscked up. Now how to > get the > data back is another thing. In worst case scenario you could analyze the > specification of the metadata format for you controller and then write a C > program > which would somehow put the bits together again using syscalls. > > Bye, > Nejc > Hi again, There are a lot of interesting statements and arguments in this thread. I am impressed. But you have to understand that I am not a very advanced user of FreeBSD and especially Linux. So I have to try to keep it simple. Thanks to the low dollar course and the technological development, I think it is reasonable for me to buy an extra disk just to try to fix my problems. Actually, a 300 GB Raptor will do. And then I can install some Linux flavour (which one should I prefer) to copy the contents of my "sick" disks bit-by-bit. And then I can somehow try to bring the disks back online again. Could you please spell it out for me, which tools I should use for that? My board has both the Intel controller and a Marvell one. Can I just keep the disks on the Intel one and disregard the offline status (if I understand you right, I might lose all metadata if I try to change anything)? AFAIK, the discussion of hardware vs. software RAID has been going on for a very long time. And it really seems to be complicated. I recognise the argument of having to stick with the same hardware. At the same time, it seems at little pessimistic that a lot of people will end up with lots of useless disks because the vendors decide to cut backward compatability. I don't know. Best regards, Jon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
> > > I like Intel as much as I like AMD > > > > That is your right. Inthell has a long history of buggy products, > > attempting to hide/ignore bugs, poor customer support, outright > > theft, etc. AMD isn't perfect, but the list of bad things is far > > far shorter. And there are other companies to consider besides > > just inthell and AMD. > > I'd rather not debate this, as it's off-topic. We can take it up > privately if you desire, but keep in mind that my ideal system would be > an AMD processor on an Intel chipset board -- but I'll probably be dead > by the time that ever happens. Both companies could have much to learn > from one another. Inthell apparently has some good fab people. If they were a designless fab house they might not be on my black list. > No administrator in their > right mind is going to disable WC unless the disks are behind some form > of controller that does caching. (For NCQ stuff, see below.) The only setup I have found that doesn't lose data is FFS+softdep+WC off. So you think I am insane for wanting to not lose data? > > > NCQ will not necessarily improve write performance. > > > > I doubt it will help if you have the disk's write cache turned on. > > I'm pretty sure it will help with write cache turned off. > > One thing I haven't tested or experimented with is disabling write > caching on a drive that has NCQ. Since FreeBSD lacks NCQ right now, we > could test this on Linux to see what the I/O difference is (I'm talking > purely from a dd or bonnie++ perspective). The filesystem may be significant, and last time I looked, linux didn't support FFS r/w. I read something indicating that recent disks do NCQ much better than earlier ones, so "NCQ support" isn't binary. This, and people testing NCQ with the write cache on, could explain the results where NCQ doesn't help. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 01:28:43PM +0100, Dieter wrote: > > > My personal approach to avoiding data loss is (a) avoid buggy things like > > > inthell and linux. > > > > Interesting, being as we have another thread going as of late that seems > > to link transparent data loss with AMD AM2-based systems with certain > > models of Adaptec and possibly LSI Logic controller cards. > > This is the SCSI with >= 4 GiB thread? Sounds like an address map > problem. It's the "am2 MBs - 4g + SCSI wipes out root partition" thread. > > I like Intel as much as I like AMD > > That is your right. Inthell has a long history of buggy products, > attempting to hide/ignore bugs, poor customer support, outright > theft, etc. AMD isn't perfect, but the list of bad things is far > far shorter. And there are other companies to consider besides > just inthell and AMD. I'd rather not debate this, as it's off-topic. We can take it up privately if you desire, but keep in mind that my ideal system would be an AMD processor on an Intel chipset board -- but I'll probably be dead by the time that ever happens. Both companies could have much to learn from one another. > > And I have no idea what your beef is with Linux. > > The quality is crap. Endless problems, including scrambled data. I'm not even going to touch this one. > > If the OP is > > successfully able to bring his array on-line using Linux, I would think > > that says something about the state of things in FreeBSD, would you > > agree? Both OSes have their pros and cons. > > It says linux got something right that FreeBSD got wrong. I never said > that BSD gets *everything* right, or that linux gets *everything* > wrong. I don't really consider it an issue of right or wrong; a very different, and unique viewpoint you have! (And I do mean that sincerely) > > > (b) FFS with softdeps and the disk write cache turned off, > > > > This has been fully discussed by developers, particularly Matt Dillon. > > I can point you to a thread discussing why doing this is not only silly, > > but a bad idea. And if you'd like, I can show you just how bad the > > performance is on disks with WC disabled using UFS2 + softupdates. When > > I say bad, I'm serious -- we're talking horrid. And yes, I have tried > > it -- see PR 127717 for evidence that I *have* tried it. :-) > > I am WELL aware of how bad write performance is on disks with the write > cache turned off. I get only about 10% of what the hardware can do, > and with large files that is very noticeable. :-( But data integrity is > important. Your 10% claim is about right. Here's some actual tests I just did (filesystem layer is in the way, but you get the idea): atapci0: port 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6,0x170-0x177,0x376,0xf000-0xf00f irq 18 at device 31.2 on pci0 ata0: on atapci0 ata0: [ITHREAD] ad0: 114473MB at ata0-master SATA150 testbox# ./atacontrol cap ad0 | grep write write cacheyes yes testbox# dd if=/dev/zero of=/usr/testfile bs=1m count=1024 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 20.199726 secs (53156257 bytes/sec) testbox# ./atacontrol wc ad0 off testbox# ./atacontrol cap ad0 | grep write write cacheyes no testbox# dd if=/dev/zero of=/usr/testfile bs=1m count=1024 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 155.745314 secs (6894216 bytes/sec) That's about 13% of the full capability. No administrator in their right mind is going to disable WC unless the disks are behind some form of controller that does caching. (For NCQ stuff, see below.) As for the reading material: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-September/045495.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-September/045542.html > > > (c) full backups. > > > > I'm curious what your logic is here too -- this one is debatable, so I'd > > like to hear your view. > > Things go wrong, and when they do backups are useful. The obvious problem > is that a backup quickly becomes out of date as data changes. RAID stays > current, but doesn't help with accidental file deletions, in cases > where the entire machine dies (fire. flood, etc.), and so on. A proper > RAID (that actually helps reliability rather than hurting it) plus > off site backups gets you pretty close. A RAID with an off site mirror > plus off site backups would be about as reliable as you can get. But if > the rate of data changes is high the communication charges could be > prohibitive. It all comes down to how important your data is and how > much money is available. Ah sorry, I misinterpreted what you wrote! For some reason I thought you were advocating *not* performing full level-0 backups. :-) > > NCQ will not necessarily improve write performance. > > I doubt it will help if you have the disk's write cache turned on. > I'm pretty sure it will help with write cache turned off. One thing I haven't tested or experimented with
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
> > My personal approach to avoiding data loss is (a) avoid buggy things like > > inthell and linux. > > Interesting, being as we have another thread going as of late that seems > to link transparent data loss with AMD AM2-based systems with certain > models of Adaptec and possibly LSI Logic controller cards. This is the SCSI with >= 4 GiB thread? Sounds like an address map problem. > I like Intel as much as I like AMD That is your right. Inthell has a long history of buggy products, attempting to hide/ignore bugs, poor customer support, outright theft, etc. AMD isn't perfect, but the list of bad things is far far shorter. And there are other companies to consider besides just inthell and AMD. > -- but it's important to remember that it's > becoming more and more difficult to provide "flawless" stability on > things as the complexities increase. Computers are complex devices and always have been. Yes this makes it difficult to get everything right. Yet it is possible to achieve very high levels of reliability, better than "5 9s". > And I have no idea what your beef is with Linux. The quality is crap. Endless problems, including scrambled data. > If the OP is > successfully able to bring his array on-line using Linux, I would think > that says something about the state of things in FreeBSD, would you > agree? Both OSes have their pros and cons. It says linux got something right that FreeBSD got wrong. I never said that BSD gets *everything* right, or that linux gets *everything* wrong. > > (b) FFS with softdeps and the disk write cache turned off, > > This has been fully discussed by developers, particularly Matt Dillon. > I can point you to a thread discussing why doing this is not only silly, > but a bad idea. And if you'd like, I can show you just how bad the > performance is on disks with WC disabled using UFS2 + softupdates. When > I say bad, I'm serious -- we're talking horrid. And yes, I have tried > it -- see PR 127717 for evidence that I *have* tried it. :-) I am WELL aware of how bad write performance is on disks with the write cache turned off. I get only about 10% of what the hardware can do, and with large files that is very noticeable. :-( But data integrity is important. > > (c) full backups. > > I'm curious what your logic is here too -- this one is debatable, so I'd > like to hear your view. Things go wrong, and when they do backups are useful. The obvious problem is that a backup quickly becomes out of date as data changes. RAID stays current, but doesn't help with accidental file deletions, in cases where the entire machine dies (fire. flood, etc.), and so on. A proper RAID (that actually helps reliability rather than hurting it) plus off site backups gets you pretty close. A RAID with an off site mirror plus off site backups would be about as reliable as you can get. But if the rate of data changes is high the communication charges could be prohibitive. It all comes down to how important your data is and how much money is available. > NCQ will not necessarily improve write performance. I doubt it will help if you have the disk's write cache turned on. I'm pretty sure it will help with write cache turned off. > I believe Andrey Elsukov is working on getting NCQ support working when > AHCI is in use (assuming I remember correctly). I look forward to having NCQ available. Write performance without it is really pathetic. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14:42AM +0100, Dieter wrote: > > FreeBSD 7.0-Release > > Intel D975XBX2 motherboard (Intel Matrix Storage Technology) > > 3 WD Raptor 74 GB in a RAID 5 array > > 1 WD Raptor 150 GB as a standalone disk > > / and /var mounted on the standalone,, /usr on the RAID 5 > > I believe what happened was that one of the disks didn't respond for such a > > long time, that is was marked "bad". And afterwards the same thing happened > > for the other disks. When I try to boot the system, all three disks are > > marked "Offline". > > > I am very desperate not to lose my data, > > In that case, step one is to use dd(1) to make a bit-for-bit copy of the > three drives to some trusted media. Since they are marked bad/offline, > you might need to move them to a controller that doesn't know anything > about RAID. (Note that there is risk here, and in almost anything you do > at this point.) Once you have this bit-for-bit backup, you can run any > experiment you like to attempt to recover your data. If the experiment > goes bad, you can dd the exact original contents back using dd, then > try a different experiment. While you're at it, make a normal backup > using dump(8) or whatever you normally use, of / and /var. Once you have > *everything* backed up, you can do risky experiments like booting linux. > > My personal approach to avoiding data loss is (a) avoid buggy things like > inthell and linux. Interesting, being as we have another thread going as of late that seems to link transparent data loss with AMD AM2-based systems with certain models of Adaptec and possibly LSI Logic controller cards. I like Intel as much as I like AMD -- but it's important to remember that it's becoming more and more difficult to provide "flawless" stability on things as the complexities increase. And I have no idea what your beef is with Linux. If the OP is successfully able to bring his array on-line using Linux, I would think that says something about the state of things in FreeBSD, would you agree? Both OSes have their pros and cons. > (b) FFS with softdeps and the disk write cache turned off, This has been fully discussed by developers, particularly Matt Dillon. I can point you to a thread discussing why doing this is not only silly, but a bad idea. And if you'd like, I can show you just how bad the performance is on disks with WC disabled using UFS2 + softupdates. When I say bad, I'm serious -- we're talking horrid. And yes, I have tried it -- see PR 127717 for evidence that I *have* tried it. :-) There *may* be advantages to disabling a disk's write cache when using a hardware RAID controller that offers its own on-board cache (DIMMs, etc.), but that cache should be battery-backed for safety reasons. > (c) full backups. I'm curious what your logic is here too -- this one is debatable, so I'd like to hear your view. > I don't have enough ports to run RAID. :-( The downside is that > FreeBSD doesn't have NCQ support yet (when? when? when?) so writes are > slow. :-( NCQ will not necessarily improve write performance. There have been numerous studies done proving this fact, and I can point you to those as well. TCQ, on the other hand, does offer performance benefits when there are a large number of simultaneous transactions occurring (think: it's more like SCSI's command queueing). I believe Andrey Elsukov is working on getting NCQ support working when AHCI is in use (assuming I remember correctly). -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
> FreeBSD 7.0-Release > Intel D975XBX2 motherboard (Intel Matrix Storage Technology) > 3 WD Raptor 74 GB in a RAID 5 array > 1 WD Raptor 150 GB as a standalone disk > / and /var mounted on the standalone,, /usr on the RAID 5 > I believe what happened was that one of the disks didn't respond for such a > long time, that is was marked "bad". And afterwards the same thing happened > for the other disks. When I try to boot the system, all three disks are > marked "Offline". > I am very desperate not to lose my data, In that case, step one is to use dd(1) to make a bit-for-bit copy of the three drives to some trusted media. Since they are marked bad/offline, you might need to move them to a controller that doesn't know anything about RAID. (Note that there is risk here, and in almost anything you do at this point.) Once you have this bit-for-bit backup, you can run any experiment you like to attempt to recover your data. If the experiment goes bad, you can dd the exact original contents back using dd, then try a different experiment. While you're at it, make a normal backup using dump(8) or whatever you normally use, of / and /var. Once you have *everything* backed up, you can do risky experiments like booting linux. My personal approach to avoiding data loss is (a) avoid buggy things like inthell and linux. (b) FFS with softdeps and the disk write cache turned off, (c) full backups. I don't have enough ports to run RAID. :-( The downside is that FreeBSD doesn't have NCQ support yet (when? when? when?) so writes are slow. :-( ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
Hello, > the drives to the other machine and try to make them online again. Do you > think I should try? If I were you, I would first buy/get a XXX GB SATA drive, create a filesystem there and copy all three disks block-by-block as three separate files (which will be the size of the disks). This way you'll still have the backup of your screwed up drives somewhere in case something goes even more wrong. However, I don't think your data is *physically* lost. I am almost sure that it is still on that drives, only the metadata could be fscked up. Now how to get the data back is another thing. In worst case scenario you could analyze the specification of the metadata format for you controller and then write a C program which would somehow put the bits together again using syscalls. Bye, Nejc ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 03:51:19PM +0200, Jon Theil Nielsen wrote: > 2008/10/15 Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Jon Theil Nielsen wrote: > > > Dear list, > > > > > > Something happened that I don't think should be possible. I "lost" all > > three > > > disks in my RAID 5 array simultaneously after approx. two years without > > any > > > problem. And I fear I will never see my data again. But I really hope > > some > > > of you clever persons can give me some hints. My system is: > > > FreeBSD 7.0-Release > > > Intel D975XBX2 motherboard (Intel Matrix Storage Technology) > > > > Are you using the Matrix Storage Technology? If so, immediately stop. > > FreeBSD's support for this is very, very bad, and will nearly guarantee > > data loss. There are many of us who have tried it, and it's known to > > be buggy on FreeBSD. > > > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting > > > > I recommend you stop using this feature and start using ZFS or gvinum > > for what you need. > > > > > 3 WD Raptor 74 GB in a RAID 5 array > > > 1 WD Raptor 150 GB as a standalone disk > > > / and /var mounted on the standalone,, /usr on the RAID 5 > > > I believe what happened was that one of the disks didn't respond for such > > a > > > long time, that is was marked "bad". And afterwards the same thing > > happened > > > for the other disks. When I try to boot the system, all three disks are > > > marked "Offline". > > > The BIOS utility for the host controller has no option to force the disks > > > back online. > > > I have another machine with a S5000XVN board and Intel Embedded Server > > RAID > > > Technology II. The BIOS configuration utility on this board has the > > option > > > to force offline drives back online. > > > > Any "embedded" RAID is usually BIOS RAID managed by either a "software > > RAID IC" (e.g. an IC on the motherboard that handles LBA/CHS addressing > > for creating a pseudo-array, but the OS still does all of the management > > and does not off-load anything). > > > > > I am very desperate not to lose my data, so I don't know if I dare moving > > > the drives to the other machine and try to make them online again. Do you > > > think I should try? > > > > No, but you might not have any choice. It honestly sounds like the > > metadata on your disks is in a bad state. > > > > I would recommend you try booting Linux, since their support for > > MatrixRAID is significantly better/more advanced. Ideally, you should > > be able to bring the RAID members back online using their tools, then > > reboot into FreeBSD and cross your fingers that your data becomes > > accessible. Once accessible, offload it somewhere immediately, and > > follow my above recommendations. > > > > > In general, are there any procedures I can try to recover my RAID array? > > Or > > > is the offline status definitive ? and all data definitely lost? I guess > > > some specialized companies have the expertise to recover lost data from a > > > broken RAID array, but I don't know. And I don't know the price of such a > > > service. > > > I would really, really appreciate any kind of help. > > > I have backups of most user data, but not of the system configuration > > (and > > > maybe even not the databases). This is of course pretty stupid. In the > > > future, I will not rely on RAID 5 as a foolproof solution? > > > > RAID 5 is a fine solution, but you have learned a very valuable lesson, > > one which I will enclose in asterisks to make it crystal clear: ***RAID > > DOES NOT REPLACE BACKUPS***. Repeat this mantra over and over until you > > accept it. :-) > > > > -- > > | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | > > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | > > > > Hi Jeremy, > > Thanks for your advice. As I understand you, the best bet is to boot from > Linux and try to repair. > And that trying with my other controller might be the second best. You risk corrupting or losing the metadata using another controller. The two controllers are *not* identical; just because they're Intel doesn't mean they speak the same metadata format. :-) > Would it be an idea to try to run som sort of Linux live cd? I have > no machines with Linux installed. Yes, absolutely. I assume any Linux distribution which uses libata should be able to speak to Intel MatrixRAID disks and BIOSes. Linux refers to this feature as "Intel SATA RAID" or "Intel Software RAID", Any present-day 2.6.x kernel uses libata; the newer the better. I do not know how to manipulate or interface with MatrixRAID on Linux. You will have to Google for how to get support in that regard. My quick searches turn up the following useful links: http://linux-ata.org/faq-sata-raid.html http://gentoo-wiki
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
2008/10/15 Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Jon Theil Nielsen wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > Something happened that I don't think should be possible. I "lost" all > three > > disks in my RAID 5 array simultaneously after approx. two years without > any > > problem. And I fear I will never see my data again. But I really hope > some > > of you clever persons can give me some hints. My system is: > > FreeBSD 7.0-Release > > Intel D975XBX2 motherboard (Intel Matrix Storage Technology) > > Are you using the Matrix Storage Technology? If so, immediately stop. > FreeBSD's support for this is very, very bad, and will nearly guarantee > data loss. There are many of us who have tried it, and it's known to > be buggy on FreeBSD. > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting > > I recommend you stop using this feature and start using ZFS or gvinum > for what you need. > > > 3 WD Raptor 74 GB in a RAID 5 array > > 1 WD Raptor 150 GB as a standalone disk > > / and /var mounted on the standalone,, /usr on the RAID 5 > > I believe what happened was that one of the disks didn't respond for such > a > > long time, that is was marked "bad". And afterwards the same thing > happened > > for the other disks. When I try to boot the system, all three disks are > > marked "Offline". > > The BIOS utility for the host controller has no option to force the disks > > back online. > > I have another machine with a S5000XVN board and Intel Embedded Server > RAID > > Technology II. The BIOS configuration utility on this board has the > option > > to force offline drives back online. > > Any "embedded" RAID is usually BIOS RAID managed by either a "software > RAID IC" (e.g. an IC on the motherboard that handles LBA/CHS addressing > for creating a pseudo-array, but the OS still does all of the management > and does not off-load anything). > > > I am very desperate not to lose my data, so I don't know if I dare moving > > the drives to the other machine and try to make them online again. Do you > > think I should try? > > No, but you might not have any choice. It honestly sounds like the > metadata on your disks is in a bad state. > > I would recommend you try booting Linux, since their support for > MatrixRAID is significantly better/more advanced. Ideally, you should > be able to bring the RAID members back online using their tools, then > reboot into FreeBSD and cross your fingers that your data becomes > accessible. Once accessible, offload it somewhere immediately, and > follow my above recommendations. > > > In general, are there any procedures I can try to recover my RAID array? > Or > > is the offline status definitive ? and all data definitely lost? I guess > > some specialized companies have the expertise to recover lost data from a > > broken RAID array, but I don't know. And I don't know the price of such a > > service. > > I would really, really appreciate any kind of help. > > I have backups of most user data, but not of the system configuration > (and > > maybe even not the databases). This is of course pretty stupid. In the > > future, I will not rely on RAID 5 as a foolproof solution? > > RAID 5 is a fine solution, but you have learned a very valuable lesson, > one which I will enclose in asterisks to make it crystal clear: ***RAID > DOES NOT REPLACE BACKUPS***. Repeat this mantra over and over until you > accept it. :-) > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | > > Hi Jeremy, Thanks for your advice. As I understand you, the best bet is to boot from Linux and try to repair. And that trying with my other controller might be the second best. Would it be an idea to try to run som sort of Linux live cd? I have no machines with Linux installed. Regards, Jon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 5 - serious problem
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Jon Theil Nielsen wrote: > Dear list, > > Something happened that I don't think should be possible. I "lost" all three > disks in my RAID 5 array simultaneously after approx. two years without any > problem. And I fear I will never see my data again. But I really hope some > of you clever persons can give me some hints. My system is: > FreeBSD 7.0-Release > Intel D975XBX2 motherboard (Intel Matrix Storage Technology) Are you using the Matrix Storage Technology? If so, immediately stop. FreeBSD's support for this is very, very bad, and will nearly guarantee data loss. There are many of us who have tried it, and it's known to be buggy on FreeBSD. http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting I recommend you stop using this feature and start using ZFS or gvinum for what you need. > 3 WD Raptor 74 GB in a RAID 5 array > 1 WD Raptor 150 GB as a standalone disk > / and /var mounted on the standalone,, /usr on the RAID 5 > I believe what happened was that one of the disks didn't respond for such a > long time, that is was marked "bad". And afterwards the same thing happened > for the other disks. When I try to boot the system, all three disks are > marked "Offline". > The BIOS utility for the host controller has no option to force the disks > back online. > I have another machine with a S5000XVN board and Intel Embedded Server RAID > Technology II. The BIOS configuration utility on this board has the option > to force offline drives back online. Any "embedded" RAID is usually BIOS RAID managed by either a "software RAID IC" (e.g. an IC on the motherboard that handles LBA/CHS addressing for creating a pseudo-array, but the OS still does all of the management and does not off-load anything). > I am very desperate not to lose my data, so I don't know if I dare moving > the drives to the other machine and try to make them online again. Do you > think I should try? No, but you might not have any choice. It honestly sounds like the metadata on your disks is in a bad state. I would recommend you try booting Linux, since their support for MatrixRAID is significantly better/more advanced. Ideally, you should be able to bring the RAID members back online using their tools, then reboot into FreeBSD and cross your fingers that your data becomes accessible. Once accessible, offload it somewhere immediately, and follow my above recommendations. > In general, are there any procedures I can try to recover my RAID array? Or > is the offline status definitive ? and all data definitely lost? I guess > some specialized companies have the expertise to recover lost data from a > broken RAID array, but I don't know. And I don't know the price of such a > service. > I would really, really appreciate any kind of help. > I have backups of most user data, but not of the system configuration (and > maybe even not the databases). This is of course pretty stupid. In the > future, I will not rely on RAID 5 as a foolproof solution? RAID 5 is a fine solution, but you have learned a very valuable lesson, one which I will enclose in asterisks to make it crystal clear: ***RAID DOES NOT REPLACE BACKUPS***. Repeat this mantra over and over until you accept it. :-) -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID migration
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Anthony Chavez wrote: > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 07:10:31PM -0600, Anthony Chavez wrote: > >> Dear freebsd-questions, > >> > >> I have a HighPoint 1820 RAID controller that is using 1 channel for an > >> OS drive and 3 channels for a RAID-5 array. I'm interested in migrating > >> to a new (possibly non-HighPoint) card, and am wondering if I will be > >> able to plug the OS drive into one channel on the new card and have it > >> "just work." Is it a safe bet that it will? > > > > It "probably" will work, assuming that the OS disk is not configured > > as a RAID or array member in the RAID cards' BIOS. Meaning, if you're > > using the disk on the controller purely in a "JBOD" fashion, yes, it > > should work. > > In the WebGUI's "logical device information" section, that particular > drive is listed as a "hard disk" whereas the other 3 are clearly spelled > out as a "RAID 5" array. When I shut the machine down, I will check the > BIOS itself to see if it specifically states "JBOD." Thanks for the > pointer. It probably won't. JBOD is just a term used to describe a hard disk hooked to a RAID controller but not part of a RAID array. I'd start by pulling the OS disk out and hooking it to a non-Highpoint controller and ensure it boots. Chances are it will. Some advice, assuming you haven't done this before: 1) Make note of what your filesystem layout is before migrating. "df" output should be sufficient. 2) When you boot it, FreeBSD will probably complain "unable to determine root filesystem". I'm guessing these are ATA/SATA disks. The kernel messages shown should list off what ATA disks are attached, and you'll have to make some educated guesses as to what it is, e.g. ufs:ad4s1a rather than the old ufs:da0s1a. You'll have to mount all the filesystems by hand (mount /dev/ad4s1d /var, etc. -- this is what #1 was for :-) ) so you can get access to vi, so you can vi /etc/fstab and fix the problem. You can also use ed(1) to do the fstab editing without having to mount everything, if you're familiar with it. Hope this helps. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID migration
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 07:10:31PM -0600, Anthony Chavez wrote: >> Dear freebsd-questions, >> >> I have a HighPoint 1820 RAID controller that is using 1 channel for an >> OS drive and 3 channels for a RAID-5 array. I'm interested in migrating >> to a new (possibly non-HighPoint) card, and am wondering if I will be >> able to plug the OS drive into one channel on the new card and have it >> "just work." Is it a safe bet that it will? > > It "probably" will work, assuming that the OS disk is not configured > as a RAID or array member in the RAID cards' BIOS. Meaning, if you're > using the disk on the controller purely in a "JBOD" fashion, yes, it > should work. In the WebGUI's "logical device information" section, that particular drive is listed as a "hard disk" whereas the other 3 are clearly spelled out as a "RAID 5" array. When I shut the machine down, I will check the BIOS itself to see if it specifically states "JBOD." Thanks for the pointer. Regardless, I will be backing it up before I attempt to plug it into a new RAID controller. >> I'm curious to know if the array could be migrated just as easily, or if >> I should listen to my instinct and count on bumping into >> incompatibilities due to proprietary implementations. > > I can absolutely guarantee you that you will lose access to all of your > data once you plug those 3 disks into another controller. > > You need to back up all of your data from the RAID-5 array using > something like rsync, cpdup, or dump, move the disks over to the > non-RAID controller, format them (in whatever fashion you want), > and then restore the backup. Exactly what I planned to do, but figured I'd ask anyhow. ;-) Thank you for responding. -- Anthony Chavez http://hexadecagram.org/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID migration
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 07:10:31PM -0600, Anthony Chavez wrote: > Dear freebsd-questions, > > I have a HighPoint 1820 RAID controller that is using 1 channel for an > OS drive and 3 channels for a RAID-5 array. I'm interested in migrating > to a new (possibly non-HighPoint) card, and am wondering if I will be > able to plug the OS drive into one channel on the new card and have it > "just work." Is it a safe bet that it will? It "probably" will work, assuming that the OS disk is not configured as a RAID or array member in the RAID cards' BIOS. Meaning, if you're using the disk on the controller purely in a "JBOD" fashion, yes, it should work. > I'm curious to know if the array could be migrated just as easily, or if > I should listen to my instinct and count on bumping into > incompatibilities due to proprietary implementations. I can absolutely guarantee you that you will lose access to all of your data once you plug those 3 disks into another controller. You need to back up all of your data from the RAID-5 array using something like rsync, cpdup, or dump, move the disks over to the non-RAID controller, format them (in whatever fashion you want), and then restore the backup. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Bill Moran wrote: > Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: > > [...] > > Jun 14 01:13:38 relay kernel: ad12: FAILURE - READ_DMA48 > > status=51 error=40 LBA=374468863 > [...] > > Replace the hard drive. Every modern hard drive keeps extra space available > to "remap" bad sectors. This happens magically behind the scenes without > you ever knowing about it. Once you've hit "uncorrectable" errors, it means > your re-mappable sectors are used up, and that means the drive is on its > last legs. That's not completely true. When a disk drive encounters a bad sector during a read operation, it will remember the bad sector address, but it is unable to transparently remap the sector because it doesn't know that correct contents of the sector. So it has to report the unrecoverable error to the OS, even if there's still plenty of space for remapping sectors. Upon the next write operation to a sector marked as bad, the drive will finally remap it and write the data to a spare location. Therefore, getting "uncorrectable errors" does *not* mean that the drive has used up its spare sectors. You only need to overwrite the bad sectors (e.g. with dd(1))so the drive gets a chance to remap them. Of course, it might still be a good idea to replace the drive anyway. It depends on the cause of the bad sectors (mechanical or electrical). If you had a head crash (caused by mechanical impact or a media manufacturing error or whatever), it is possible that it caused debris within the drive which will cause further bad blocks. This can lead to a snowball effect that can really exhaust all spare sectors quickly. On the other hand, if the bad sectors where caused by a voltage spike, a power failure or similar, chances are that the drive is fine and you can continue to use it after making sure that the bad sectors are remapped (by overwriting them, see above). Finally, there is also the possibility that the problem is caused by a bug in the drive's firmware. If that's the case, I would be inclined to replace the drive with a different brand. However, I guess all drives have bugs ... the question is whether they affect you. Another question is whether it's possible at all to find out what caused the problem in the first place. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "What is this talk of 'release'? We do not make software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes', leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake." ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Hello, As a last resort, you could also try: atacontrol reinit ata6 and try reattaching again Thank you Manolis - you have been more than patient with me! Unfortunately, the result is still the same. OK. I am going to ask our hosting company to replace the drive. Again, many thanks for your help! Zbigniew Szalbot smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: Hello one last time, Manolis Kiagias: Ok, ad12 is missing, so it seems it was detached but not reattached. try again: atacontrol attach ata6 $ sudo atacontrol attach ata6 atacontrol: ioctl(IOCATAATTACH): File exists Thank you all for a lot of suggestions! Zbigniew Szalbot As a last resort, you could also try: atacontrol reinit ata6 and try reattaching again ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Hello one last time, Manolis Kiagias: Ok, ad12 is missing, so it seems it was detached but not reattached. try again: atacontrol attach ata6 $ sudo atacontrol attach ata6 atacontrol: ioctl(IOCATAATTACH): File exists Thank you all for a lot of suggestions! Zbigniew Szalbot smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: Hello, Manolis Kiagias: Try atacontrol status ar0 ar0: ATA RAID1 status: DEGRADED subdisks: 0 ad10 ONLINE 1 MISSING Since you haven't actually removed/replaced ad12 you may simply have to continue with: atacontrol rebuild ar0 I'll try it now. Thanks! Zbigniew Szalbot Ok, ad12 is missing, so it seems it was detached but not reattached. try again: atacontrol attach ata6 If this succeeds, atacontrol addspare ar0 ad12 atacontrol rebuild ar0 If attach fails, then someone at the remote site may have to physically detach / reattach the disk in question. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Hello, Manolis Kiagias: Try atacontrol status ar0 Since you haven't actually removed/replaced ad12 you may simply have to continue with: atacontrol rebuild ar0 atacontrol rebuild ar0 atacontrol: ioctl(IOCATARAIDREBUILD): Input/output error So it looks like it cannot be done? Zbigniew Szalbot smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Hello, Manolis Kiagias: Try atacontrol status ar0 ar0: ATA RAID1 status: DEGRADED subdisks: 0 ad10 ONLINE 1 MISSING Since you haven't actually removed/replaced ad12 you may simply have to continue with: atacontrol rebuild ar0 I'll try it now. Thanks! Zbigniew Szalbot smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: Hi Manolis, Yes, it is ata6 Give it a try, if the problem is serious enough, it will probably not even finish rebuild :( Detaching and ataching went well but when I issued atacontrol addspare ar0 ad12 it said atacontrol: ioctl(IOCATARAIDADDSPARE): Device busy I am not sure if that means I should wait or rather that it is mission impossible? Thanks! Zbigniew Szalbot Try atacontrol status ar0 Since you haven't actually removed/replaced ad12 you may simply have to continue with: atacontrol rebuild ar0 but see what status says first. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Hi Manolis, Yes, it is ata6 Give it a try, if the problem is serious enough, it will probably not even finish rebuild :( Detaching and ataching went well but when I issued atacontrol addspare ar0 ad12 it said atacontrol: ioctl(IOCATARAIDADDSPARE): Device busy I am not sure if that means I should wait or rather that it is mission impossible? Thanks! Zbigniew Szalbot smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
(Write errors is however usually a strong indication that the drive should be replaced ASAP.) he got read error... but your sentence alone is true of course. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: Hello Manolis, I understand you are using the ataraid (ar) driver. I always use gmirror, but it seems they pointed you to the right place in the handbook. Look at section 18.4.3 - you would probably need to do something like: # atacontrol list ATA channel 6: Master: ad12 Serial ATA v1.0 Slave: no device present ATA channel 0: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 1: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 2: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 3: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 4: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 5: Master: ad10 Serial ATA v1.0 Slave: no device present ATA channel 6: Master: ad12 Serial ATA v1.0 Slave: no device present ATA channel 7: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 8: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 9: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 10: Master: no device present Slave: no device present So in this case it would be ata6? Sorry for asking confirmation for every step but it is just so new to me! And thanks for the list of steps to perform! Zbigniew Szalbot Yes, it is ata6 Give it a try, if the problem is serious enough, it will probably not even finish rebuild :( ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:41:15PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > Replace the hard drive. Every modern hard drive keeps extra space available > > to "remap" bad sectors. This happens magically behind the scenes without > > you ever knowing about it. Once you've hit "uncorrectable" errors, it means > > no. usually it means that there was an error when writing that sector, and > later there is an error on read. madia may be good (quite often is). > > if you would be right i wouldn't have my disk running one year after > having whole block of "uncorrectable errors" > > i just rewrote that blocks and they are readable. > > drive HAS TO know about bad media to remap, and no HDDs today perform > verification Also, remapping can only happen if the error is encountered on a write operation. If there is an error on read the drive cannot remap, since it does not know what data should be there. (A good RAID implementation could however handle a read error by reading the corresponding sector from the other disks(s) in the array and write it back to the failing disk, probably causing it to remap the block.) (Write errors is however usually a strong indication that the drive should be replaced ASAP.) -- Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Hello Manolis, I understand you are using the ataraid (ar) driver. I always use gmirror, but it seems they pointed you to the right place in the handbook. Look at section 18.4.3 - you would probably need to do something like: # atacontrol list ATA channel 6: Master: ad12 Serial ATA v1.0 Slave: no device present ATA channel 0: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 1: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 2: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 3: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 4: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 5: Master: ad10 Serial ATA v1.0 Slave: no device present ATA channel 6: Master: ad12 Serial ATA v1.0 Slave: no device present ATA channel 7: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 8: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 9: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 10: Master: no device present Slave: no device present So in this case it would be ata6? Sorry for asking confirmation for every step but it is just so new to me! And thanks for the list of steps to perform! Zbigniew Szalbot ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Replace the hard drive. Every modern hard drive keeps extra space available to "remap" bad sectors. This happens magically behind the scenes without you ever knowing about it. Once you've hit "uncorrectable" errors, it means no. usually it means that there was an error when writing that sector, and later there is an error on read. madia may be good (quite often is). if you would be right i wouldn't have my disk running one year after having whole block of "uncorrectable errors" i just rewrote that blocks and they are readable. drive HAS TO know about bad media to remap, and no HDDs today perform verification ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: Dear all, Bill Moran: My understanding is that RAID 1 no longer works because of this error. There is a bad sector on HD (Offline uncorrectable sectors) and the best we can do is replace the drive? Does it make sense to try to turn RAID 1 on ignoring this error (however, this is done in BIOS so the machine would have to be taken down in order to do that)? It seems serious enough for me not to ignore it but then I know close to nothing about HDs. Replace the hard drive. Every modern hard drive keeps extra space available to "remap" bad sectors. This happens magically behind the scenes without you ever knowing about it. Once you've hit "uncorrectable" errors, it means your re-mappable sectors are used up, and that means the drive is on its last legs. Thank you Bill. One last question. RAID 1 is off now (degraded) and the hosting company is asking if I can try to bring it up (to check if it will work). They have given me this link http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/raid.html. The problem is that as far as I understand we are not using gmirror but RAID 1 turned on in BIOS (although it is also software-based). Thank you very much in advance! Zbigniew Szalbot www.lc-words.com Hey Zbigniew ;) I understand you are using the ataraid (ar) driver. I always use gmirror, but it seems they pointed you to the right place in the handbook. Look at section 18.4.3 - you would probably need to do something like: # atacontrol list From the list, get the ATA channel for /dev/ad12 which is the faulty one, e.g. ata2 Detach and re-attach (maybe this will reset the state of the drive) atacontrol detach ata2 atacontrol attach ata2 atacontrol addspare ar0 ad12 atacontrol rebuild ar0 I've done more or less the same with gmirror when I had similar messages a few months back. It may work for a few hours/days but it will fail again. Have it replaced ASAP. Manolis ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
Dear all, Bill Moran: My understanding is that RAID 1 no longer works because of this error. There is a bad sector on HD (Offline uncorrectable sectors) and the best we can do is replace the drive? Does it make sense to try to turn RAID 1 on ignoring this error (however, this is done in BIOS so the machine would have to be taken down in order to do that)? It seems serious enough for me not to ignore it but then I know close to nothing about HDs. Replace the hard drive. Every modern hard drive keeps extra space available to "remap" bad sectors. This happens magically behind the scenes without you ever knowing about it. Once you've hit "uncorrectable" errors, it means your re-mappable sectors are used up, and that means the drive is on its last legs. Thank you Bill. One last question. RAID 1 is off now (degraded) and the hosting company is asking if I can try to bring it up (to check if it will work). They have given me this link http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/raid.html. The problem is that as far as I understand we are not using gmirror but RAID 1 turned on in BIOS (although it is also software-based). Thank you very much in advance! Zbigniew Szalbot www.lc-words.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 1 / disk error / Offline uncorrectable sectors
In response to Zbigniew Szalbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > A couple of days ago smartd let me know about a disk problem. > > Jun 14 01:13:38 relay kernel: ad12: FAILURE - READ_DMA48 > status=51 error=40 LBA=374468863 > Jun 14 01:13:38 relay kernel: ar0: WARNING - mirror protection lost. > RAID1 array in DEGRADED mode > Jun 14 01:14:19 relay kernel: ad12: WARNING - WRITE_DMA taskqueue > timeout - completing request directly > Jun 14 01:14:19 relay kernel: ad12: WARNING - WRITE_DMA48 freeing > taskqueue zombie request > Jun 14 01:37:38 relay smartd[683]: Device: /dev/ad12, 1 Currently > unreadable (pending) sectors > Jun 14 01:37:38 relay smartd[683]: Device: /dev/ad12, 1 Offline > uncorrectable sectors > > If I do smarctl -a /dev/ad12 I get > > 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000Old_age Always >- 1 > 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000Old_age > Offline - 1 > > My understanding is that RAID 1 no longer works because of this error. > There is a bad sector on HD (Offline uncorrectable sectors) and the best > we can do is replace the drive? Does it make sense to try to turn RAID 1 > on ignoring this error (however, this is done in BIOS so the machine > would have to be taken down in order to do that)? It seems serious > enough for me not to ignore it but then I know close to nothing about HDs. Replace the hard drive. Every modern hard drive keeps extra space available to "remap" bad sectors. This happens magically behind the scenes without you ever knowing about it. Once you've hit "uncorrectable" errors, it means your re-mappable sectors are used up, and that means the drive is on its last legs. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID 0+1
> -Original Message- > From: Nejc Škoberne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:06 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: 'User Questions' > Subject: Re: RAID 0+1 > > > Hey, > > > don't use gmirror and atacontrol at the same time. Use one or > the other. > > I don't. As I said: > > > Then I would merge the second > > slice of all 4 drives into a 0+1 array (first gstriping and > > then gmirroring them). I somehow succeeded this, but I also > > get a WARNING when booting the system: > > So I am gstriping first and then gmirroring the stripes. > And I am getting this warning message: > > >> WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 63 > > I don't know if I should worry about this or not. > You mentioned you used atacontrol to create the array, that's not part of gmirror. However in any case, you are not done. What you need to do now is write some data to the array, then unplug one of the sata connectors to the drive. The array will go into fault mode. Then you need to add the disk back in and see if the array will accept it, or if the array ends up scotching everything. A mirror is no good if it can't actually survive a fault. I used to do this when selling servers to HP Proliants. I'd have a customer with me and go to one of our production, running HP servers, eject a drive from the array, give it to the customer for inspection, then plug it back in. Other than the red light appearing on the drive for a few minutes, the rebuild operation was entirely in hardware, the server wouldn't even blink. If your array can't do that, your just basically technically masterbating with your system to feel good - it is in actuality a completely worthless mirror setup. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID 0+1
Hey, don't use gmirror and atacontrol at the same time. Use one or the other. I don't. As I said: > Then I would merge the second > slice of all 4 drives into a 0+1 array (first gstriping and > then gmirroring them). I somehow succeeded this, but I also > get a WARNING when booting the system: So I am gstriping first and then gmirroring the stripes. And I am getting this warning message: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 63 I don't know if I should worry about this or not. Thanks, Nejc ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID 0+1
don't use gmirror and atacontrol at the same time. Use one or the other. Ted > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Nejc Škoberne > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:51 AM > To: User Questions > Subject: RAID 0+1 > > Hello, > > I have FreeBSD 7.0 and 4 250GB SATA disks and I would like to > make one big 500GB > 0+1 RAID array. My hardware is HP ProLiant ML110G5. > > First I tried creating ATA RAID arrays with BIOS tools, but > FreeBSD wouldn't recognize the arrays. > > Than I decided to create the RAID-0 arrays with atacontrol. I > succeeded, ending up with ar0 and ar1 each 500GB big. My plan > was to install the FreeBSD as usual on ar0 and then add both > into a gmirror array. However, I BootMgr seem not to be able > to boot from RAID-0 array created with atacontrol? Is this > correct? I guess this is because BootMgr knows nothing about > striping and cannot read the kernel. > > Finally I tried to create two slices on each drive. The plan > was to join the first slice of all 4 drives into a gmirror > array and mount it as / partition (I guess BootMgr would boot > normally from such an array). Then I would merge the second > slice of all 4 drives into a 0+1 array (first gstriping and > then gmirroring them). I somehow succeeded this, but I also > get a WARNING when booting the system: > > ad0: 238475MB at ata0-master SATA150 > ad1: 238475MB at ata0-slave SATA150 > ad2: 238475MB at ata1-master SATA150 > GEOM_STRIPE: Device gs0 created (id=2160028923). > GEOM_STRIPE: Disk ad0s2 attached to gs0. > ad3: 238475MB at ata1-slave SATA150 > GEOM_STRIPE: Disk ad1s2 attached to gs0. > GEOM_STRIPE: Device gs0 activated. > GEOM_STRIPE: Device gs1 created (id=3269017453). > GEOM_STRIPE: Disk ad2s2 attached to gs1. > GEOM_MIRROR: Device mirror/gm0 launched (4/4). > GEOM_STRIPE: Disk ad3s2 attached to gs1. > GEOM_STRIPE: Device gs1 activated. > WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 63 > GEOM_MIRROR: Device mirror/gm1 launched (1/2). > GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm1: rebuilding provider stripe/gs1. > > Is this critical? It looks like the system is fine, though. > > Is there any "more proper" way to build such a system with RAID 0+1? > > Thanks, > Nejc > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid and dump/restore after the disaster
At 02:09 AM 4/30/2008, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hi! Anybody on this, plase? :) Am I missing something basilar, or it's a FreeBSD bug? Incomplete support for the ICH9R? I cannot attach the boot log, because the boot process panics just before mounting the disks and nothing is logged on /var/log/ Anyways, booting in verbose mode shows that the last activities before it panics are on the disks and fakeraid.. it finds one of the disks and then the last output before the panic is about the Intel MatrixRAID. Any thoughts on this, please? Best regards Robi Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hi all! I'm playing with new HW and FreeBSD 6.3 and 7.0. I set up raid 1 on two sata disks (fakeraid on ICH9R) and as long as I can see, it seams to work very well. Now I'm trying to simulate 1 disk failure (I just take out a disk and boot again). Doesn't matter which of the two disks I take out, the bios correctly shows the raid as degraded and bootable, loads the FreeBSD loader, who loads the kernel and starts the boot. But when the kernel comes to the drives (or the swap?) it fatal traps 12. The trap descriptions sais that current process is 0 (swapper). Reading that I commented out the swap partition from fstab, but that doesn't help. How can I get the system to finish the boot? Thank you and best regards. I believe these are software RAID and the support for the failover is in the system BIOS. If a drive fails, you need to replace the failed drive and rebuild the array. If you want hot swapable drives in an array, you will need to use a different RAID card that supports that feature. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid and dump/restore after the disaster
Hi! Anybody on this, plase? :) Am I missing something basilar, or it's a FreeBSD bug? Incomplete support for the ICH9R? I cannot attach the boot log, because the boot process panics just before mounting the disks and nothing is logged on /var/log/ Anyways, booting in verbose mode shows that the last activities before it panics are on the disks and fakeraid.. it finds one of the disks and then the last output before the panic is about the Intel MatrixRAID. Any thoughts on this, please? Best regards Robi Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hi all! I'm playing with new HW and FreeBSD 6.3 and 7.0. I set up raid 1 on two sata disks (fakeraid on ICH9R) and as long as I can see, it seams to work very well. Now I'm trying to simulate 1 disk failure (I just take out a disk and boot again). Doesn't matter which of the two disks I take out, the bios correctly shows the raid as degraded and bootable, loads the FreeBSD loader, who loads the kernel and starts the boot. But when the kernel comes to the drives (or the swap?) it fatal traps 12. The trap descriptions sais that current process is 0 (swapper). Reading that I commented out the swap partition from fstab, but that doesn't help. How can I get the system to finish the boot? Thank you and best regards. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID on HP ML110 G5
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nejc Škoberne > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:30 AM > To: Tom Munro Glass > Cc: User Questions > Subject: Re: RAID on HP ML110 G5 > > > Hey Tom, > > > I would like to run FreeBSD 7 on a HP ML110 G5. I understand > from past posts > > to this list that the ML110 series is FreeBSD friendly, but > what about RAID 1 > > using the on-board SATA controller? Will this work and how do > you set this > > up? > > I have just configured a ML110G5 with FreeBSD 7 a few days ago. > If you try to make > a BIOS RAID (create an array in RAID controller BIOS), then > FreeBSD won't recognize > it as it does not understand the metadata format which controller > BIOS uses to > manage the arrays. What you have to do is (having RAID mode in > BIOS still enabled) > boot the server with FreeBSD 7 CD and then go to Fixit utility. > There you can create > "hardware" (see previous posts about this being hardware RAID) > RAID with "atacontrol" > utility. This way, FreeBSD will use its own metadata format for > the array and will > recognize such arrays as "arX" devices. Restarting the box you > can then install > FreeBSD easily on these arX devices like on normal adX or daX > devices. So remember, > this is not the "real" FreeBSD software RAID since it is not > controlled by FreeBSD > kernel but by the SATA/RAID controller. For example, I have 4 > drives and I created > RAID-0 (stripes) with atacontrol and will merge them (in a few > days) into a RAID-1 > gmirror. > I think if you set the BIOS control to RAID OFF it will work the same way. The RAID-specific stuff in the BIOS only is used for generating the array and rebuilding it. Once the system is up and running the BIOS code isn't executed and it makes no difference what the setting is. In fact, in the HP DL 320 G5 you MUST set the SATA bios OFF or FreeBSD won't even recognize the SATA controller at all. I have also used this same trick with systems that had no RAID in their BIOS at all but happened to have a RAID-compliant chipset. For example a number of the older Promise UDMA controllers do not have a BIOS on them but the ata driver will allow you to create a pseudo-hardware RAID array anyway. Naturally, you can only do mirroring or striping. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID on HP ML110 G5
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Nejc Škoberne wrote: > Hey Tom, > > > I would like to run FreeBSD 7 on a HP ML110 G5. I understand from past > > posts to this list that the ML110 series is FreeBSD friendly, but what > > about RAID 1 using the on-board SATA controller? Will this work and how > > do you set this up? > > I have just configured a ML110G5 with FreeBSD 7 a few days ago. If you try > to make a BIOS RAID (create an array in RAID controller BIOS), then FreeBSD > won't recognize it as it does not understand the metadata format which > controller BIOS uses to manage the arrays. What you have to do is (having > RAID mode in BIOS still enabled) boot the server with FreeBSD 7 CD and then > go to Fixit utility. There you can create "hardware" (see previous posts > about this being hardware RAID) RAID with "atacontrol" utility. This way, > FreeBSD will use its own metadata format for the array and will recognize > such arrays as "arX" devices. Restarting the box you can then install > FreeBSD easily on these arX devices like on normal adX or daX devices. So > remember, this is not the "real" FreeBSD software RAID since it is not > controlled by FreeBSD kernel but by the SATA/RAID controller. For example, > I have 4 drives and I created RAID-0 (stripes) with atacontrol and will > merge them (in a few days) into a RAID-1 gmirror. > > Hope that helps, > Nejc Thanks to all who replied. Since it is possible to use the SATA RAID but it isn't true hardware RAID, is it better to use the SATA RAID or use gmirror? Regards Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID on HP ML110 G5
Hey Tom, I would like to run FreeBSD 7 on a HP ML110 G5. I understand from past posts to this list that the ML110 series is FreeBSD friendly, but what about RAID 1 using the on-board SATA controller? Will this work and how do you set this up? I have just configured a ML110G5 with FreeBSD 7 a few days ago. If you try to make a BIOS RAID (create an array in RAID controller BIOS), then FreeBSD won't recognize it as it does not understand the metadata format which controller BIOS uses to manage the arrays. What you have to do is (having RAID mode in BIOS still enabled) boot the server with FreeBSD 7 CD and then go to Fixit utility. There you can create "hardware" (see previous posts about this being hardware RAID) RAID with "atacontrol" utility. This way, FreeBSD will use its own metadata format for the array and will recognize such arrays as "arX" devices. Restarting the box you can then install FreeBSD easily on these arX devices like on normal adX or daX devices. So remember, this is not the "real" FreeBSD software RAID since it is not controlled by FreeBSD kernel but by the SATA/RAID controller. For example, I have 4 drives and I created RAID-0 (stripes) with atacontrol and will merge them (in a few days) into a RAID-1 gmirror. Hope that helps, Nejc ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID on HP ML110 G5
raid on those boxes - being sata raid - isn't a true hardware raid. simply use gmirror and turn this "hardware" RAID off - to get the same but with much greater control and portability. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID on HP ML110 G5
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of tomasz > dereszynski > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 6:17 PM > To: Tom Munro Glass > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: RAID on HP ML110 G5 > > > Tom Munro Glass wrote: > > I would like to run FreeBSD 7 on a HP ML110 G5. I understand > from past posts > > to this list that the ML110 series is FreeBSD friendly, but > what about RAID 1 > > using the on-board SATA controller? Will this work and how do > you set this > > up? > > > > Regards > > > > Tom Munro Glass > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > i would recommend to build RAID1 using gmirror instead as then you can > use smartd to monitor drives what isnt possible (AFAIK) with hardware > RAID on those boxes. > Untrue. Those boxes use regular sata raid chipsets that are supported by the ata driver and are easily monitored. Note that the "hardware" raid on those boxes - being sata raid - isn't a true hardware raid. The only true sata hardware raid under FreeBSD that I know of are the 3ware and hipoint cards Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID on HP ML110 G5
Tom Munro Glass wrote: I would like to run FreeBSD 7 on a HP ML110 G5. I understand from past posts to this list that the ML110 series is FreeBSD friendly, but what about RAID 1 using the on-board SATA controller? Will this work and how do you set this up? Regards Tom Munro Glass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" i would recommend to build RAID1 using gmirror instead as then you can use smartd to monitor drives what isnt possible (AFAIK) with hardware RAID on those boxes. -- bEsT rEgArDs| "Confidence is what you have before you tomasz dereszynski | understand the problem." -- Woody Allen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID
In the last episode (Mar 11), kalin m said: > thanks [...] > > in my case the machine showed me the ar0 to install the system on it > without doing this 'quick and dirty way'. > > and now i get: > # atacontrol status ar0 > ar0: ATA RAID1 status: READY > subdisks: > 0 ad4 ONLINE > 1 ad6 ONLINE > > that tells me that i actually do have RAID1 active. which means it's a > software one, correct? Right. The system must have already been set up for RAID when you bought it. > also if you do not mind please elaborate on "MatrixRAID is one of > those not-really-raid controllers that only provides RAID during the > boot process..." All of the controllers handled by the ataraid device are BIOS-only raid controllers. Once the boot process hands control to an operating system, that OS has to manage the RAID itself, making sure that mirrored disks are written to, and rebuilding damaged volumes. This is different from hardware RAID, where external hardware (usually with a battery-backed RAM cache to add performance) manages all of that and the OS just has to read and write blocks to the virtual raid device. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID
thanks i read the atacontrol man. there is a part in there that says: .. A quick and dirty way to create such a mirrored array (RAID1) on a new system is to boot off the FreeBSD install CD, do a minimal scratch install, abort out of the post install questions, and at the command line issue the com- mand: atacontrol create RAID1 ad4 ad6 then immediately issue a reboot and boot from the installation CD again, and during the installation, you will now see "ar0" listed as a disk to install on, and install on that instead of ad4, ad6, etc. . in my case the machine showed me the ar0 to install the system on it without doing this 'quick and dirty way'. and now i get: # atacontrol status ar0 ar0: ATA RAID1 status: READY subdisks: 0 ad4 ONLINE 1 ad6 ONLINE that tells me that i actually do have RAID1 active. which means it's a software one, correct? also if you do not mind please elaborate on "MatrixRAID is one of those not-really-raid controllers that onlyprovides RAID during the boot process..." thank you... Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Mar 11), kalin m said: thanks i did install the system now on ar0. the dmesg output below didn't change. the df does show only one drive - ar0 - with a few slices... assuming now that i have RAID1 working is there any way to monitor disks individually? or as an array? how can i be sure that the RAID is actually working? or get any stats? i figured the driver for the must be iir. bit from the iir man page ther is not much about monitoring or status... MatrixRAID is one of those not-really-raid controllers that only provides RAID during the boot process, and the OS has to implement RAID in software itself. FreeBSD has an ataraid driver to handle these cards. The atacontrol command lets you view status. See the ataraid and atacontrol manpages for more info. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID
In the last episode (Mar 11), kalin m said: > thanks > i did install the system now on ar0. the dmesg output below didn't change. > the df does show only one drive - ar0 - with a few slices... > assuming now that i have RAID1 working is there any way to monitor disks > individually? or as an array? > how can i be sure that the RAID is actually working? or get any stats? > i figured the driver for the must be iir. bit from > the iir man page ther is not much about monitoring or status... MatrixRAID is one of those not-really-raid controllers that only provides RAID during the boot process, and the OS has to implement RAID in software itself. FreeBSD has an ataraid driver to handle these cards. The atacontrol command lets you view status. See the ataraid and atacontrol manpages for more info. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID
thanks i did install the system now on ar0. the dmesg output below didn't change. the df does show only one drive - ar0 - with a few slices... assuming now that i have RAID1 working is there any way to monitor disks individually? or as an array? how can i be sure that the RAID is actually working? or get any stats? i figured the driver for the must be iir. bit from the iir man page ther is not much about monitoring or status... thanks... Tamouh H. wrote: hi ... i have a simple RAID question(s). this is from the dmesg of a newly installed bsd7: ad4: 238475MB at ata2-master SATA150 ad6: 238475MB at ata3-master SATA150 ar0: 238472MB status: READY ar0: disk0 READY (master) using ad4 at ata2-master ar0: disk1 READY (mirror) using ad6 at ata3-master from what i understand here is that if at the time of installation i install the system on ar0 that means i'd have RAID1 made out of ad4 and ad6. right? is there any configuration to be done? how do i know what driver is being used? it says: hptrr: HPT RocketRAID controller driver v1.1 (Feb 24 2008 19:59:27) . hptrr: no controller detected.' that's it. thanks. It is saying "ar0: 238472MB status: READY" So assume it is onboard Intel RAID. When configuring FBSD setup, just make sure you're selecting the ar0 controller and partition it as you like. That is it! Tamouh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID
> hi ... > > i have a simple RAID question(s). > > this is from the dmesg of a newly installed bsd7: > > ad4: 238475MB at ata2-master SATA150 > ad6: 238475MB at ata3-master SATA150 > ar0: 238472MB status: READY > ar0: disk0 READY (master) using ad4 at ata2-master > ar0: disk1 READY (mirror) using ad6 at ata3-master > > from what i understand here is that if at the time of > installation i install the system on ar0 that means i'd have > RAID1 made out of ad4 and ad6. > right? > is there any configuration to be done? > how do i know what driver is being used? it says: > hptrr: HPT RocketRAID controller driver v1.1 (Feb 24 2008 > 19:59:27) . > hptrr: no controller detected.' > > > that's it. thanks. > > > > It is saying "ar0: 238472MB status: READY" So assume it is onboard Intel RAID. When configuring FBSD setup, just make sure you're selecting the ar0 controller and partition it as you like. That is it! Tamouh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID mirror really worked
... But with a raid controller mirror you do not have to send the data twice over the host bus. please reread what i said. most todays "RAID" controllers are actually normal controllers with BIOS with software support. these are supported with ataraid. there is nothing done by "hardware" gmirror is awesome -- Sten Daniel Soersdal ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID mirror really worked
Wojciech Puchar wrote: gmirror works too very good without any hardware :) CB> Yes, but a hardware RAID works without the OS having to know about it. :-) ...and its failures? ;) :) for mirroring there is almost no CPU overhead so buying extra hardware doesn't make sense at all. not mentioning that most of such hardware are actually normal disk controllers with extra soft in BIOS. these are supported by ataraid driver. much better is to use gmirror so it will be completely portable. and - with gmirror you DO NOT have to mirror/stripe/concat whole drives. and that's what i do most often - mirror important data but store unimportant data without it. ... But with a raid controller mirror you do not have to send the data twice over the host bus. gmirror is awesome -- Sten Daniel Soersdal ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID mirror really worked
gmirror works too very good without any hardware :) CB> Yes, but a hardware RAID works without the OS having to know about it. :-) ...and its failures? ;) :) for mirroring there is almost no CPU overhead so buying extra hardware doesn't make sense at all. not mentioning that most of such hardware are actually normal disk controllers with extra soft in BIOS. these are supported by ataraid driver. much better is to use gmirror so it will be completely portable. and - with gmirror you DO NOT have to mirror/stripe/concat whole drives. and that's what i do most often - mirror important data but store unimportant data without it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID mirror really worked
Hello, Christian. On 14 января 2008 г., 14:12:04 you wrote: CB> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:48:09 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> gmirror works too very good without any hardware :) CB> Yes, but a hardware RAID works without the OS having to know about it. :-) ...and its failures? ;) -- Best regards, Michael mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID mirror really worked
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:48:09 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar wrote: > gmirror works too very good without any hardware :) Yes, but a hardware RAID works without the OS having to know about it. :-) Regards, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID mirror really worked
I've got a Promise TX2300 SATA Raid controller that I use on my FreeBSD fileserver at home. It uses ataraid. I've set up a simple two-drive mirror. One of the drives has been sending me intermittent failure messages in the nightly emails for nearly a year - no more than one or two a month. Last night it finally croaked. The mirror broke, but it went into "degraded" mode and kept right on chugging along with no service interruption. Today I took down the system, replaced the bad drive, rebuilt the array using Promise's BIOS tools (since that's how I built it originally), and everything is back to normal. gmirror works too very good without any hardware :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML
On Sep 6, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Johan Hendriks wrote: Do not go for the adaptec 1210! That was not one of the choices given. The ARC-1210 is a different device from a different manufacturer -- Areca. Chad I have the same model, and it always give errors on /dev/ad6 First I thought it was the drive itself but after swapping that one with another one still /dev/ad6 errors. Also swapping ad4 to ad6 /dev/ad6 errors out and freezes the system. Long story short it is an unstable product under FreeBSD Current and 6.x I use a 3ware card now and no problems what so ever. Regards, Johan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED]" --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Maxim Khitrov > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:15 PM > To: brad davison > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML > > > On 9/5/07, brad davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Hello, > > > > > >My two main candidates are Areca ARC-1210, and 3ware 9650SE-4LPML. > > >Both are 4-lane SATA II controllers. Both cost about the same, and > > >from what I gather, both should be supported by FreeBSD. I read the > > >reviews, but would like to get some additional feedback specifically > > >for using the two under FreeBSD (maybe one has better drivers... I > > >don't know). > > > > I just put a 3ware Escalade into our mail server. I don't have > experience > > with the model you are speaking of, but I know that 3ware and BSD have a > > good long history together. I had no problems with the > controller (but I > > did have a strange issue with some Seagate drives, replacing them with > > Western Digitals fixed that though.) > > > > >RAID5? Which one has more mature drivers? If you have some other > > >recommendations, I'm happy to hear those as well. > > > > Like I mentioned, I had no problems with the 3ware, and it had > good driver > > support in BSD. > > > > from the 3ware website::: http://www.3ware.com/support/OS-Support.asp > > 9650SE Series > > > > * FreeBSD 5.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set > > * FreeBSD 6.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set > > * FreeBSD 6.1 (x86 & x86_64) > > > > Take it easy, > > Brad > > Good to know, thanks. Would still like to know a bit more about Areca, > since I have no experience with them and only heard about their > products recently. > > As an alternative, I was considering the cheap(er) option. The > motherboard (GA-P35-DQ6) comes with 6 SATA II ports connected to > ICH9R. I have a feeling that using RAID 5 with this option would be > rather slow, that's why I'm looking into a dedicated hardware > controller. However, RAID 10 is a fairly simple implementation. I > can't use RAID 0 because I need redundancy, and RAID 1 is too slow. > RAID 10 obviously requires more drives, but for the $300 that I would > have spent on the controller, maybe instead it's worth to simply buy > an additional drive or two and use the built-in controller. > > Any thoughts on this? I could probably get 4 320GB Seagate 7200.10 > drives to begin with and have 640GB of space. Would add two more later > on when I need them. This actually turns out to be cheaper initially > than getting 3 of those drives along with a hardware controller. My > guess is that performance may also be better due to simplicity of > design. How does FreeBSD play with ICH9R RAID? > I think if you want speed using 7200 rpm drives that your kidding yourself. Keep in mind if you do anything on an internal psuedo controller that is fancier than plain mirroring, if you lose a disk your risking ending up with a server that all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put back together again. (without reformatting) To do it right you need a hardware controller and at least 6 spindles, plus you need to buy another drive that sits on your shelf in it's antistatic wrapper - ready to be swapped in on the day your controller reports a spindle is dead. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML
Do not go for the adaptec 1210! I have the same model, and it always give errors on /dev/ad6 First I thought it was the drive itself but after swapping that one with another one still /dev/ad6 errors. Also swapping ad4 to ad6 /dev/ad6 errors out and freezes the system. Long story short it is an unstable product under FreeBSD Current and 6.x I use a 3ware card now and no problems what so ever. Regards, Johan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML
I'm building a new workstation for myself, which will primarily run FreeBSD 7.0+ and possibly dual-boot with Win XP for gaming. I'd like to have at least a terabyte of redundant disk storage (probably RAID5), so I'm trying to figure out which controller would give me the best results. simply use no raid+software raid ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML
On 9/5/07, brad davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Hello, > > > >My two main candidates are Areca ARC-1210, and 3ware 9650SE-4LPML. > >Both are 4-lane SATA II controllers. Both cost about the same, and > >from what I gather, both should be supported by FreeBSD. I read the > >reviews, but would like to get some additional feedback specifically > >for using the two under FreeBSD (maybe one has better drivers... I > >don't know). > > I just put a 3ware Escalade into our mail server. I don't have experience > with the model you are speaking of, but I know that 3ware and BSD have a > good long history together. I had no problems with the controller (but I > did have a strange issue with some Seagate drives, replacing them with > Western Digitals fixed that though.) > > >RAID5? Which one has more mature drivers? If you have some other > >recommendations, I'm happy to hear those as well. > > Like I mentioned, I had no problems with the 3ware, and it had good driver > support in BSD. > > from the 3ware website::: http://www.3ware.com/support/OS-Support.asp > 9650SE Series > > * FreeBSD 5.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set > * FreeBSD 6.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set > * FreeBSD 6.1 (x86 & x86_64) > > Take it easy, > Brad Good to know, thanks. Would still like to know a bit more about Areca, since I have no experience with them and only heard about their products recently. As an alternative, I was considering the cheap(er) option. The motherboard (GA-P35-DQ6) comes with 6 SATA II ports connected to ICH9R. I have a feeling that using RAID 5 with this option would be rather slow, that's why I'm looking into a dedicated hardware controller. However, RAID 10 is a fairly simple implementation. I can't use RAID 0 because I need redundancy, and RAID 1 is too slow. RAID 10 obviously requires more drives, but for the $300 that I would have spent on the controller, maybe instead it's worth to simply buy an additional drive or two and use the built-in controller. Any thoughts on this? I could probably get 4 320GB Seagate 7200.10 drives to begin with and have 640GB of space. Would add two more later on when I need them. This actually turns out to be cheaper initially than getting 3 of those drives along with a hardware controller. My guess is that performance may also be better due to simplicity of design. How does FreeBSD play with ICH9R RAID? - Max ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: RAID Controller Recommendations: ARC-1210 or 9650SE-4LPML
Hello, My two main candidates are Areca ARC-1210, and 3ware 9650SE-4LPML. Both are 4-lane SATA II controllers. Both cost about the same, and from what I gather, both should be supported by FreeBSD. I read the reviews, but would like to get some additional feedback specifically for using the two under FreeBSD (maybe one has better drivers... I don't know). I just put a 3ware Escalade into our mail server. I don't have experience with the model you are speaking of, but I know that 3ware and BSD have a good long history together. I had no problems with the controller (but I did have a strange issue with some Seagate drives, replacing them with Western Digitals fixed that though.) RAID5? Which one has more mature drivers? If you have some other recommendations, I'm happy to hear those as well. Like I mentioned, I had no problems with the 3ware, and it had good driver support in BSD. from the 3ware website::: http://www.3ware.com/support/OS-Support.asp 9650SE Series * FreeBSD 5.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set * FreeBSD 6.0 driver source available in 9.4.1 code set * FreeBSD 6.1 (x86 & x86_64) Take it easy, Brad _ Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger Café. http://www.cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_SeptHMtagline1 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Raid monitoring - 6.2 RELEASEE - Dell SC440
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Lars Olsson wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 6.2 RELEASE on a Dell PowerEdge SC440 with a SAS 5/iR Hmmm, must be a software-assist RAID. Does it probe a mega-volume / logical disk or individual components? ~BAS Raid controller. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 12:11:24AM +0200, Gabriel Rossetti wrote: > Jerry McAllister wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:07:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> On 24/05/07, kalin mintchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> so nobody on this list knows anything about raid? > >>> wrong list? > >>> > >>> > hi all.. > > i have a box in a remote hosting facility that claims that the machine > >>> has > >>> > two discs raided in it but df and fstab show only one disc with a bunch > >>> of > slices. > under devices there is another name - ad6 - but it's not mounted > >>> anywhere. > >>> > the one i see both in df and the fstab is ad4 with one big slice and > different partitions > > they insist there are 2 raided discs in tha machine. the os is 5.4 and i > think at that point the raid drivers were still considered > >>> 'experimental'. > >>> > it makes sense to me that if i don't see a second drive in the fstab > >>> there > isn;t any mounting which means that there is no raid going on... > > is there any other way i can make sure if raid is actually on? > would there will be any logs somewhere? > the machine has been up for about 2 years and the dmesg is long gone... > > thanks. > > >> Lots of people here know plenty about RAID, > >> but you don't provide very much information. > >> > >> If dmesg itself returns none of the startup info, > >> you can look in /var/log/dmesg.[today|yesterday]. > >> > >> /usr/sbin/pciconf can tell you what controller(s) > >> may be attached. > >> > >> A proper RAID will show up as a single device, > >> just like any hard drive (but different). > >> > >> It does seem odd to me that a (supposed) RAID > >> would show up as /dev/ad4. > >> > > > > A hardware raid will look like any other drive to the system. > > If it is SATA raid, it should be adN > > It is it SAS raid, it should be daN. > > > > > I have an SATA RAID controller (rocketraid 1640) and the drive shows up > as daN and not adN That may be correct.You may need to address the raid as /dev/dann I have not had a SATA raid to see what it did. I just know that the SAS raid showed up as da-something (I don't have it available to check. jerry > When I tested the controller without the driver loaded the DRIVES showed > up ad adN, I put > drives in caps because this is what I think is happening here, the > driver isn't loaded and/or no > RAID devices were created, so the RAID controller's drives just show up > as drives and the > controller is just used as a non-RAID controller. I suspect this is why > he sees a second disk. > > Gabriel > > Some systems allow you to address the drives as either individual > > drives or as the raid - maybe until you have configured it or > > something. Anyway, on a Dell 2950 I could see both designations > > but figured out which was the raid and used it and all was fine. > > > > jerry > > > > > >> Possibilities: > >> Your RAID really is on /dev/ad4 and /dev/ad6 is > >> something unexplained. > >> Your RAID controller is unsupported in 5.x and > >> not Doing The Right Thing but somehow still (kind > >> of) working as a normal [S]ATA controller. > >> Your RAID controller is unsupported in 5.x and > >> your hosting company realised this and wired > >> the shebang up as a normal [S]ATA controller > >> because they couldn't get FreeBSD to install > >> otherwise. > >> There is a RAID controller and there are two disks > >> connected to it, but the controller was not set up > >> correctly. > >> There is a RAID controller and there are two disks > >> connected to some other controller which might lead > >> to some interesting phone calls. > >> Your remote hosting company put a RAID with two > >> disks in some random machine and someone else > >> is complaining on some other list about the inverse > >> of your problem. > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> ___ > >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > >> > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
Jerry McAllister wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:07:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> On 24/05/07, kalin mintchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> so nobody on this list knows anything about raid? >>> wrong list? >>> >>> hi all.. i have a box in a remote hosting facility that claims that the machine >>> has >>> two discs raided in it but df and fstab show only one disc with a bunch >>> of >>> slices. under devices there is another name - ad6 - but it's not mounted >>> anywhere. >>> the one i see both in df and the fstab is ad4 with one big slice and different partitions they insist there are 2 raided discs in tha machine. the os is 5.4 and i think at that point the raid drivers were still considered >>> 'experimental'. >>> it makes sense to me that if i don't see a second drive in the fstab >>> there >>> isn;t any mounting which means that there is no raid going on... is there any other way i can make sure if raid is actually on? would there will be any logs somewhere? the machine has been up for about 2 years and the dmesg is long gone... thanks. >> Lots of people here know plenty about RAID, >> but you don't provide very much information. >> >> If dmesg itself returns none of the startup info, >> you can look in /var/log/dmesg.[today|yesterday]. >> >> /usr/sbin/pciconf can tell you what controller(s) >> may be attached. >> >> A proper RAID will show up as a single device, >> just like any hard drive (but different). >> >> It does seem odd to me that a (supposed) RAID >> would show up as /dev/ad4. >> > > A hardware raid will look like any other drive to the system. > If it is SATA raid, it should be adN > It is it SAS raid, it should be daN. > > I have an SATA RAID controller (rocketraid 1640) and the drive shows up as daN and not adN When I tested the controller without the driver loaded the DRIVES showed up ad adN, I put drives in caps because this is what I think is happening here, the driver isn't loaded and/or no RAID devices were created, so the RAID controller's drives just show up as drives and the controller is just used as a non-RAID controller. I suspect this is why he sees a second disk. Gabriel > Some systems allow you to address the drives as either individual > drives or as the raid - maybe until you have configured it or > something. Anyway, on a Dell 2950 I could see both designations > but figured out which was the raid and used it and all was fine. > > jerry > > >> Possibilities: >> Your RAID really is on /dev/ad4 and /dev/ad6 is >> something unexplained. >> Your RAID controller is unsupported in 5.x and >> not Doing The Right Thing but somehow still (kind >> of) working as a normal [S]ATA controller. >> Your RAID controller is unsupported in 5.x and >> your hosting company realised this and wired >> the shebang up as a normal [S]ATA controller >> because they couldn't get FreeBSD to install >> otherwise. >> There is a RAID controller and there are two disks >> connected to it, but the controller was not set up >> correctly. >> There is a RAID controller and there are two disks >> connected to some other controller which might lead >> to some interesting phone calls. >> Your remote hosting company put a RAID with two >> disks in some random machine and someone else >> is complaining on some other list about the inverse >> of your problem. >> >> -- >> -- >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: raid or not raid
> -Original Message- > From: kalin mintchev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:04 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: raid or not raid > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kalin mintchev > >> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:11 PM > >> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: raid or not raid > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:30:06AM -0400, kalin mintchev wrote: > >> >> > >> >> so nobody on this list knows anything about raid? > >> >> wrong list? > >> >> > >> >> > hi all.. > >> >> > > >> >> > i have a box in a remote hosting facility that claims that > >> the machine > >> >> has > >> >> > two discs raided in it but df and fstab show only one disc with a > >> >> bunch of > >> >> > slices. > >> >> > under devices there is another name - ad6 - but it's not mounted > >> >> anywhere. > >> >> > the one i see both in df and the fstab is ad4 with one big slice > >> and > >> >> > different partitions > >> > > >> > My (VIA Tech V-RAID) raid disk shows up as ar0, although the ad4 and > >> ad6 > >> > device nodes exist as well. > >> > > >> > Do you have the ataraid device in the kernel? > >> > >> yes. but isn;t that in by default in 5.4 GENERIC?! > >> > >> >> > they insist there are 2 raided discs in tha machine. the os > >> is 5.4 and > >> >> i > >> >> > think at that point the raid drivers were still considered > >> >> > 'experimental'. > >> > > >> > Then ask them how it's done. > >> > > >> >> > it makes sense to me that if i don't see a second drive in the > >> fstab > >> >> there > >> >> > isn;t any mounting which means that there is no raid going on... > >> > > >> > If you're seeing an ad device, it's not RAID-ed, AFAIK. > >> > > >> >> > is there any other way i can make sure if raid is actually on? > >> >> > would there will be any logs somewhere? > >> >> > the machine has been up for about 2 years and the dmesg is long > >> >> gone... > >> > > >> > It should be in /var/run/dmesg.boot. > >> > >> thanks. i guess that solves the ad6 mistery: > >> > >> atapci0: port > >> 0xfc00-0xfc0f,0x376,0x170-0x177,0x3f6,0x1f0-0x1f7 at device > 31.1 on pci0 > >> ata0: channel #0 on atapci0 > >> ata1: channel #1 on atapci0 > >> atapci1: port > >> 0xcc80-0xcc8f,0xcc98-0xcc9b,0xcca0-0xcca7,0xccb0-0xccb3,0xccb8-0xccbf > >> irq > >> 18 at device 31.2 on pci0 > >> ata2: channel #0 on atapci1 > >> ata3: channel #1 on atapci1 > >> . > >> ad4: 152587MB [310019/16/63] at > >> ata2-master > >> SATA150 > >> ad6: 152587MB [310019/16/63] at > >> ata3-master > >> SATA150 > >> Mounting root from ufs:/dev/ad4s1a > >> > >> unless "at device 31.2 on pci0" points to some RAID evidence - which i > >> think it's false - than i read this as the ad6 disk sits there unused. > >> am i right?! > >> > >> according to pciconf the atapci0 and atapci1 are differnt conrollers - > >> EIDE and SATA so they can both be on pci0 as 31.1 and 31.2?! still no > >> RAID > >> though... > >> > > > > I've come late to this thread but it's been interesting watching the > > speculation. > > > > Yes, they F'd up the installation. Badly. But you need to > back up every > > scrap of data before trying to fix it. And use FBSD 6.2 on the > next one. > > There's been lots of driver fixes in the ata driver that you want. > > > > ata raid should show all your data on AR not AD!! Here's an example > > from my mailserver: > > > > mail# cat /etc/fstab > > # DeviceMountpoint FStype Options Dump > > Pass# > > /dev/ar0s1b no
RE: raid or not raid
> > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kalin mintchev >> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:11 PM >> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: raid or not raid >> >> >> > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:30:06AM -0400, kalin mintchev wrote: >> >> >> >> so nobody on this list knows anything about raid? >> >> wrong list? >> >> >> >> > hi all.. >> >> > >> >> > i have a box in a remote hosting facility that claims that >> the machine >> >> has >> >> > two discs raided in it but df and fstab show only one disc with a >> >> bunch of >> >> > slices. >> >> > under devices there is another name - ad6 - but it's not mounted >> >> anywhere. >> >> > the one i see both in df and the fstab is ad4 with one big slice >> and >> >> > different partitions >> > >> > My (VIA Tech V-RAID) raid disk shows up as ar0, although the ad4 and >> ad6 >> > device nodes exist as well. >> > >> > Do you have the ataraid device in the kernel? >> >> yes. but isn;t that in by default in 5.4 GENERIC?! >> >> >> > they insist there are 2 raided discs in tha machine. the os >> is 5.4 and >> >> i >> >> > think at that point the raid drivers were still considered >> >> > 'experimental'. >> > >> > Then ask them how it's done. >> > >> >> > it makes sense to me that if i don't see a second drive in the >> fstab >> >> there >> >> > isn;t any mounting which means that there is no raid going on... >> > >> > If you're seeing an ad device, it's not RAID-ed, AFAIK. >> > >> >> > is there any other way i can make sure if raid is actually on? >> >> > would there will be any logs somewhere? >> >> > the machine has been up for about 2 years and the dmesg is long >> >> gone... >> > >> > It should be in /var/run/dmesg.boot. >> >> thanks. i guess that solves the ad6 mistery: >> >> atapci0: port >> 0xfc00-0xfc0f,0x376,0x170-0x177,0x3f6,0x1f0-0x1f7 at device 31.1 on pci0 >> ata0: channel #0 on atapci0 >> ata1: channel #1 on atapci0 >> atapci1: port >> 0xcc80-0xcc8f,0xcc98-0xcc9b,0xcca0-0xcca7,0xccb0-0xccb3,0xccb8-0xccbf >> irq >> 18 at device 31.2 on pci0 >> ata2: channel #0 on atapci1 >> ata3: channel #1 on atapci1 >> . >> ad4: 152587MB [310019/16/63] at >> ata2-master >> SATA150 >> ad6: 152587MB [310019/16/63] at >> ata3-master >> SATA150 >> Mounting root from ufs:/dev/ad4s1a >> >> unless "at device 31.2 on pci0" points to some RAID evidence - which i >> think it's false - than i read this as the ad6 disk sits there unused. >> am i right?! >> >> according to pciconf the atapci0 and atapci1 are differnt conrollers - >> EIDE and SATA so they can both be on pci0 as 31.1 and 31.2?! still no >> RAID >> though... >> > > I've come late to this thread but it's been interesting watching the > speculation. > > Yes, they F'd up the installation. Badly. But you need to back up every > scrap of data before trying to fix it. And use FBSD 6.2 on the next one. > There's been lots of driver fixes in the ata driver that you want. > > ata raid should show all your data on AR not AD!! Here's an example > from my mailserver: > > mail# cat /etc/fstab > # DeviceMountpoint FStype Options Dump > Pass# > /dev/ar0s1b noneswapsw 0 0 > /dev/ar0s1a / ufs rw 1 1 > /dev/ar0s1e /usrufs rw 2 2 > /dev/ar0s1d /varufs rw 2 2 > /dev/acd0 /cdrom cd9660 ro,noauto 0 0 > mail# > > Also, note the following. VERY important! > > When you go to setup a RAID mirror on a system, using a UDMA or SATA > controller, > (ie: NOT using a RAID5 card or SCSI card or some such) here is what you > do. > > Start by going into the system RAID BIOS on boot, setup your RAID, then > boot the install disk. Disks ad4 and ad6 will always show. If disk ar0 > also shows, you can select ar0 and install to that. > > IF DISK ar0 DOES NOT SHOW, then your BIOS "metadata" isn't compatible. > STOP. > Reboot system. GO into BIOS. DESELECT and DISABLE the RAID. > > Boot system with install CD. At the screen that displays ad4 and ad6, > select > ad4. Select Minimal install. Don't bother answering any post install > questions. > Finish install. Reboot and login to root. At command line, issue > command: > > atacontrol create RAID1 ad4 ad6 > > Immediately reboot from the install CD. Now, at the disk selection screen > you will see ar0. Select this. Delete all existing partitions and > recreate > them, install the full system and your in business. nice... thank you. i love condensed instructions. saves so much time... > Ted > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: raid or not raid
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kalin mintchev > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:11 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: raid or not raid > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:30:06AM -0400, kalin mintchev wrote: > >> > >> so nobody on this list knows anything about raid? > >> wrong list? > >> > >> > hi all.. > >> > > >> > i have a box in a remote hosting facility that claims that > the machine > >> has > >> > two discs raided in it but df and fstab show only one disc with a > >> bunch of > >> > slices. > >> > under devices there is another name - ad6 - but it's not mounted > >> anywhere. > >> > the one i see both in df and the fstab is ad4 with one big slice and > >> > different partitions > > > > My (VIA Tech V-RAID) raid disk shows up as ar0, although the ad4 and ad6 > > device nodes exist as well. > > > > Do you have the ataraid device in the kernel? > > yes. but isn;t that in by default in 5.4 GENERIC?! > > >> > they insist there are 2 raided discs in tha machine. the os > is 5.4 and > >> i > >> > think at that point the raid drivers were still considered > >> > 'experimental'. > > > > Then ask them how it's done. > > > >> > it makes sense to me that if i don't see a second drive in the fstab > >> there > >> > isn;t any mounting which means that there is no raid going on... > > > > If you're seeing an ad device, it's not RAID-ed, AFAIK. > > > >> > is there any other way i can make sure if raid is actually on? > >> > would there will be any logs somewhere? > >> > the machine has been up for about 2 years and the dmesg is long > >> gone... > > > > It should be in /var/run/dmesg.boot. > > thanks. i guess that solves the ad6 mistery: > > atapci0: port > 0xfc00-0xfc0f,0x376,0x170-0x177,0x3f6,0x1f0-0x1f7 at device 31.1 on pci0 > ata0: channel #0 on atapci0 > ata1: channel #1 on atapci0 > atapci1: port > 0xcc80-0xcc8f,0xcc98-0xcc9b,0xcca0-0xcca7,0xccb0-0xccb3,0xccb8-0xccbf irq > 18 at device 31.2 on pci0 > ata2: channel #0 on atapci1 > ata3: channel #1 on atapci1 > . > ad4: 152587MB [310019/16/63] at ata2-master > SATA150 > ad6: 152587MB [310019/16/63] at ata3-master > SATA150 > Mounting root from ufs:/dev/ad4s1a > > unless "at device 31.2 on pci0" points to some RAID evidence - which i > think it's false - than i read this as the ad6 disk sits there unused. > am i right?! > > according to pciconf the atapci0 and atapci1 are differnt conrollers - > EIDE and SATA so they can both be on pci0 as 31.1 and 31.2?! still no RAID > though... > I've come late to this thread but it's been interesting watching the speculation. Yes, they F'd up the installation. Badly. But you need to back up every scrap of data before trying to fix it. And use FBSD 6.2 on the next one. There's been lots of driver fixes in the ata driver that you want. ata raid should show all your data on AR not AD!! Here's an example from my mailserver: mail# cat /etc/fstab # DeviceMountpoint FStype Options Dump Pass# /dev/ar0s1b noneswapsw 0 0 /dev/ar0s1a / ufs rw 1 1 /dev/ar0s1e /usrufs rw 2 2 /dev/ar0s1d /varufs rw 2 2 /dev/acd0 /cdrom cd9660 ro,noauto 0 0 mail# Also, note the following. VERY important! When you go to setup a RAID mirror on a system, using a UDMA or SATA controller, (ie: NOT using a RAID5 card or SCSI card or some such) here is what you do. Start by going into the system RAID BIOS on boot, setup your RAID, then boot the install disk. Disks ad4 and ad6 will always show. If disk ar0 also shows, you can select ar0 and install to that. IF DISK ar0 DOES NOT SHOW, then your BIOS "metadata" isn't compatible. STOP. Reboot system. GO into BIOS. DESELECT and DISABLE the RAID. Boot system with install CD. At the screen that displays ad4 and ad6, select ad4. Select Minimal install. Don't bother answering any post install questions. Finish install. Reboot and login to root. At command line, issue command: atacontrol create RAID1 ad4 ad6 Immediately reboot from the install CD. Now, at the disk selection screen you will see ar0. Select this. Delete all existing partitions and recreate them, install the full system and your in business. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Raid Controller
At 09:45 AM 5/25/2007, Lucien Werner wrote: I am building a file server off freeBSD, and am wondering if my sata raid controller is supported by the OS. I have the Addonics *4 Port RAID 5 / JBOD SATA II PCI Controller (ADSA4R5) controller host. The chipset is Silicon Image Sil 3124. If this raid card is not supported, can I install drivers once the system is running? Where would I find them for freeBSD? The supported hardware list is here: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.2R/hardware.html But I'll tell ya' the SiL sata chips are junk. FreeBSD will recognize and run with them, but under heavy IO will crash, corrupt data, and other unacceptable things. I think the ata driver developer gave up on the things. In any case, don't even waste time trying to assemble a system with one. -RW ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Raid Controller
> I am building a file server off freeBSD, and am wondering if my sata raid
> controller is supported by the OS. I have the Addonics *4 Port RAID 5 /
> JBOD SATA II PCI Controller (ADSA4R5) controller host. The chipset is
> Silicon Image Sil 3124. If this raid card is not supported, can I install
> drivers once the system is running? Where would I find them for freeBSD?
The 3124 is listed as supported in the "ad" manpage. However, in general
a lot of people (including me) have had troubles with Silicon Image
chipsets (google("freebsd sil3112 timeout") etc). I have had trouble
with at least the 3112 and the 3114.
I recommend some Googling on the specific situation with the 3124.
--
/ Peter Schuller
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: raid or not raid
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 04:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
> "kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> replying to your email down the thread...but using this content...
>
>> L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
>> 0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4
>
> The actual disk, ad4
>
>> 0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4s1
>
> the first slice in the disk
>
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad6
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1a
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1b
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1c
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1d
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1e
>> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1f
>> 0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4s1g
>
> the g partition in slice 1 of disk ad4.
>
> They all get used (from the GEOM POV) when , for example, userland access
> the fs located in ad4s1g .
>
> clear as mud? ;)
that's what i meant... well... cool.. thanks to all...
now i have to make some 'interesting' phone calls
> _
> {Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
>
> Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are
> wrong.
>
> I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when
> wet. Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You
> have been Warned.
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
On Fri, 25 May 2007 04:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
"kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
replying to your email down the thread...but using this content...
> L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
> 0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4
The actual disk, ad4
> 0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4s1
the first slice in the disk
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad6
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1a
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1b
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1c
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1d
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1e
> 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1f
> 0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4s1g
the g partition in slice 1 of disk ad4.
They all get used (from the GEOM POV) when , for example, userland access the
fs located in ad4s1g .
clear as mud? ;)
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:41:28 +0700 (ICT)
Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > how come there is ad4s1b and ad4s1c when those names don't appear in the
> > fstab or df?
>
because df shows mounted disks, and fstab what to mount. neither of them affect
b (usually swap) or c (as per Olivier below).
you can see b by using the right command, for example, swapinfo:
$ swapinfo
Device 1K-blocks UsedAvail Capacity
/dev/ad0s1b.eli 41943040 4194304 0%
( mine has .eli @ the end because it's an encrypted swap device).
> Very often ad4s1b will be the swap and ad4s1c the full slice.
>
> That is not an absolute rule, but it is very much recommended (at
> least for ad4s1c) to keep it equivalent to the full slice.
indeed :) gstat shows them anyway because they are part of the GEOM subsys - u
just need the right tool to see them.
Regards,
B
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
"Gravity cannot be blamed for people falling in love."
Albert Einstein
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
>> how come there is ad4s1b and ad4s1c when those names don't appear in the >> fstab or df? > > Very often ad4s1b will be the swap and ad4s1c the full slice. > > That is not an absolute rule, but it is very much recommended (at > least for ad4s1c) to keep it equivalent to the full slice. but there is ad4s1 (without [a-g]) - isn;t that the full slice? or ad4s1 is more like ad4 (only one slice) - cause if you notice on the output i sent in the previous message the kBps value is the same for ad4, ad4s1 and ad4s1g which (to me) it basically says that only the g partition is being accessed at that moment. thanks... > > Olivier > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
> how come there is ad4s1b and ad4s1c when those names don't appear in the > fstab or df? Very often ad4s1b will be the swap and ad4s1c the full slice. That is not an absolute rule, but it is very much recommended (at least for ad4s1c) to keep it equivalent to the full slice. Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
> "kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> unless "at device 31.2 on pci0" points to some RAID evidence - which i
>> think it's false - than i read this as the ad6 disk sits there unused.
>> am i right?!
>
> FWIW, you can use gstat (as root) to see if a certain geom device (eg, any
> storage ) is being accessed, and its load.
the gstat is pretty cool. it shows something like this:
L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4
0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4s1
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad6
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1a
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1b
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1c
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1d
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1e
0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad4s1f
0 6 66278.5 0 00.05.0| ad4s1g
how come there is ad4s1b and ad4s1c when those names don't appear in the
fstab or df?
thanks
>
> it works at leat on 6.x - not sure about 5.x.
>
>
>
> _
> {Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
>
> "It is a lesson which all history teaches wise men, to put trust in ideas,
> and not in circumstances."
>Emerson
>
> I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when
> wet. Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You
> have been Warned.
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: raid or not raid
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
"kalin mintchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unless "at device 31.2 on pci0" points to some RAID evidence - which i
> think it's false - than i read this as the ad6 disk sits there unused.
> am i right?!
FWIW, you can use gstat (as root) to see if a certain geom device (eg, any
storage ) is being accessed, and its load.
it works at leat on 6.x - not sure about 5.x.
_
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
"It is a lesson which all history teaches wise men, to put trust in ideas, and
not in circumstances."
Emerson
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
