> vgcreate vg2t /dev/sda /dev/sdb
> lvcreate --type raid0 -name lv-stg --size 16700GiB vg2t
I solved the problem by manually activating it initially.
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:41 PM Tom Dial wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/28/21 12:58, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/
did not specify an allocation rule in the lvcreate command that
created the volume group. Based on my experience and existing volume
groups, it also is the default for vgcreate command if nothing else is
specified.
The above also shows "LV Status NOT available". That likely indicates
th
On Fri, 28 May 2021 21:10:03 +0200
john doe wrote:
> On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
> >
> > There is no encrypted volume.
> >
>
> That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
No, not if (as M. Atmaca has
Hi.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 09:31:06PM +0300, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
>
...
> [Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:2: raid: Failed
> to run raid array
> [Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table:
> That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
thanks, i didn't know. I will check it. :)
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:10 PM john doe wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
> >
> > There is no encrypted volume.
On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
There is no encrypted volume.
That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
1)
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/System_configuration#Mounting_at_boot_time
--
John Doe
> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
There is no encrypted volume.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:37 PM john doe wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> > Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
> >
> > [Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu:
On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
[Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX (outside TXT) disabled by BIOS
[Fri May 28 14:14:20 2021] r8169 :06:00.0: unknown chip XID 641
[Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper:
Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
[Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX (outside TXT) disabled by BIOS
[Fri May 28 14:14:20 2021] r8169 :06:00.0: unknown chip XID 641
[Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:2: raid: Failed
to run raid array
Hello
I did LVM raid 0. But when reboot the disks come as "inherit".
What would be the reason ?
lvdisplay
--- Logical volume ---
LV Path/dev/vg2t/lv-st0
LV Namelv-st0
VG Namevg2t
LV UUID
Le 29/07/2019 à 00:26, Finariu Florin a écrit :
Hi everyone,
I can not install GRUB on Debian 10.It's fail every time.
AFAIK GRUB supports RAID and most software RAID levels (only "linear" is
not supported).
How does it fail ? What is the error message ? What is displayed in the
log
On 11/5/18 9:17 AM, Finariu Florin wrote:
Hi,
Hi. :-)
Somebody can help me with some information about why I can not see the Raid0
created in bios?
I have a motherboard EPC602D8A with 2 chipsets: Intel C602 (Sata 2 x 4, Sata 3
x 2) and Marvell SE9172 (Sata 3 x 2). I create in BIOS a Raid0
Hi Matthias,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:15:43PM +0200, Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> I am using Mint LMDE2 with debian backports. So I do have kernel
> 4.4+71~bpo8+1 running.
> btrfs tools are from debian stable, which has version 3.17. I am wondering if
> it would make sense to also get the
Hello Andy,
I am trying to stay with newest versions as long as it does not jeopardize
stability.
I am using Mint LMDE2 with debian backports. So I do have kernel 4.4+71~bpo8+1
running.
btrfs tools are from debian stable, which has version 3.17. I am wondering if
it would make sense to also
You are right. I did the same test with dd. It took a while ;-)
23# dd if=/dev/zero of=file.zero
dd: Schreiben in „file.zero“: Auf dem Gerät ist kein Speicherplatz mehr
verfügbar
1462670786+0 Datensätze ein
1462670785+0 Datensätze aus
748887441920 Bytes (749 GB) kopiert, 14831,9 s, 50,5 MB/s
On 04/16/2016 12:00 AM, Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
I have 3 hard drive with 750 GB, 500 GB and 250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
thinking to create a raid0
Hello,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 01:35:20PM +0200, Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso wrote:
> Still btrfs is quite young, I am not sure if there are serious issues in
> 3.17,
> I would make some experiments before actual use.
If you are going to use btrfs I would consider it essential to be
subscribed
On sábado, 16 de abril de 2016 12:05:05 (CEST) Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> 38# df -h /mnt/test/
> Dateisystem Größe Benutzt Verf. Verw% Eingehängt auf
> /dev/sdg 699G 17M 466G 1% /mnt/test
df is not reliable for btrfs raids, it is better to use btrfs fi df to check
actual used space.
Using
ard drive with 750 GB, 500 GB and 250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
>>> filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
>>>
>>> My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
>>> thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 25
. I want to use btrfs as
>> filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
>>
>> My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
>> thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 250 GB drive. This would result
>> in a raid0 with 75
0 GB data capacity. So I was
> thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 250 GB drive. This would result
> in a raid0 with 750 GB capacity. I want to add this raid0 as a mirror in a
> raid1 with the other 750 GB drive.
>
> But how do I do that?
>
> Thanks
> Matthias
Disc
Hello,
I have 3 hard drive with 750 GB, 500 GB and 250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 250 GB drive. This would
ray a écrit :
>
> Using Linux software RAID0, my speed (MB/s) findings are:
> Single SSDRAID0, 2 SSDs
> Intel SATA III540 960
> Intel SATA II 530 535
SATA II has a maximum throughput of 300 MB/s, so I wonder how you can
reach 530 MB/
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:50:05 AM UTC-5, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> ray a écrit :
> >
> > Using Linux software RAID0, my speed (MB/s) findings are:
> > Single SSDRAID0, 2 SSDs
> > Intel SATA III540 960
> > Intel SATA II
To follow-up:
The SATA controllers are on an Asus P9X79-E WS. The controllers consist of:
Intel SATA III, 2 ports
Intel SATA II, 4 ports
Marvel SATA III, 4 ports
I had previously benchmarked controller based RAID0 and Linux RAID0 and found
the software solution on this box was 10% slower than
. In the RAID0
configuration, the speed vary significantly:
30+30 535 MB/sec
60+60 720 MB/sec
120+120 1040 MB/sec
For the 30G modules, the RAID0 slows down performance. I would like to know how
I can trouble shoot this poor performance.
Any suggestions?
Hello:
I know that a correct software mirror raid is subject to failures, when
anything wrong is written to both disks. And I also know that hardware
mirror raid is subject to hardware failures. I said at the beginning that I
keep two wheezy mirror-raid servers with the same data and software. Now
Francesco Pietra wrote:
PS: You did not comment whether the pipe' command that I use to verify
grub has a general validity. As far as I could use it, I found it
equivalent to examining each disk, one at a time.
It was clever! It was definitely in the spirit of the Unix
philosophy. At the
Francesco Pietra wrote:
I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with
very limited ability in recovering from disk failures.
I must express concern. While RAID is very useful to keeping a
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with very
limited ability in recovering from disk failures.
I planned to
PM
Subject: Re: Debian installer and raid0
To: debian-users debian-user@lists.debian.org, amd64 Debian
debian-am...@lists.debian.org
I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with
very limited
I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with
very limited ability in recovering from disk failures.
I planned to use the double-opteron, two sockets, server, tya 64, as a
victim for the test you
I have no other machines than the said two servers. As soon as a machine
was dismissed, parts were recovered for the new machines. Does not matter,
I'll try. What I was also asking, however, was how to boot to the grub only:
I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
With both
Francesco Pietra wrote:
I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
Press a key on the keyboard before the 5 second count down timer
counts all of the way down. Pressing a key stops the timer and causes
it to stay on the menu waiting for keyboard input.
Bob
signature.asc
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you use a recent version of the installer? What I would like to know -
before reinstalling everything on my servers - is whether the option to set
grub on both disks of raid 0 has now been introduced.
No.
--
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Did you use a recent version of the installer? What I would like to know -
before reinstalling everything on my servers - is whether the option to
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com wrote:
recall that it has been added with Wheezy. But let me put forward
that it doesn't really matter. If you have RAID then you know you
want grub on both disks. After installing simply run the grub install
script
Francesco Pietra wrote:
Thanks so much. I am also using raid1 since I met Debian, so many years
ago. However the poor way I described. I'll do what you suggest as soon
time permits, although the cables to the HDs in the old server are
difficultly accessible. And, in the meantime, I would be at
Klaus wrote:
Francesco Pietra wrote:
I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
When the system starts booting, the grub menu entries appear on
screen. After a timeout (default 5 sec) the default entry is
selected and the boot sequence continues. For details, here is the
Thanks so much. I am also using raid1 since I met Debian, so many years
ago. However the poor way I described. I'll do what you suggest as soon
time permits, although the cables to the HDs in the old server are
difficultly accessible. And, in the meantime, I would be at a single
server, insecure
Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Debian installer and raid0
To: debian-users debian-user@lists.debian.org, amd64 Debian
debian-am...@lists.debian.org
Thanks so much. I am also using raid1 since I met Debian, so many years
ago. However the poor way I
On 05/10/13 09:00, Francesco Pietra wrote:
I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
When the system starts booting, the grub menu entries appear on screen.
After a timeout (default 5 sec) the default entry is selected and the
boot sequence continues. For details, here is
data on both servers to cope with grub on one disk
only. Not smart from my side.
I agree with the other responder. It is unlikely IMNHO that you want
RAID0 (striping) for the system disk. You most likely want RAID1
(mirroring) instead. The answer above is the same regardless. If you
Francesco Pietra wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
After installing simply run the grub install script against both
disks manually and then you will be assured that it has been
installed on both disks.
I had problems with that methodology and was unable to detect my error.
From a thread on
Hello:
Did you use a recent version of the installer? What I would like to know -
before reinstalling everything on my servers - is whether the option to set
grub on both disks of raid 0 has now been introduced.
Thanks
francesco pietra
introduced.
Installing any OS on a RAID 0 (striping) is very strange thing to do -
considering that disk failure in a RAID 0 = everything on this RAID0
is lost.
Maybe you've meant RAID1 (mirroring)?
Reco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe
IMNHO that you want
RAID0 (striping) for the system disk. You most likely want RAID1
(mirroring) instead. The answer above is the same regardless. If you
are thinking striping for performance instead I recommend using an SSD
for the system disk.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi all,
Having installed debian onto a hardware raid pc setup, using dmraid=true
switch, I attempt to repair the failed grub/lilo bootlader install after
rebooting into rescue, again with dmraid=true
How can I get grub installed?
Background info:
Partitioning setup according to guided lvm
Drives 2 and 3 in RAID0, splitted in 2 x 2TB folders
Installation is going weel, GRUB installed on the first disk. While
it's installating, from alt-f2 I looked at the dev folder and I'm able
to see the Volume0px files.
After restart. grub is staring correctly, but it's not able to mount
the RAID
Hi,
I'm trying for the 2 last days to install a Debian Wheezy on a RAID0
drive but I'm facing many issues.
I have 2 x 2TB drives configured in a 4TB RAID0 drive.
I initially used the b3 net installer but it was missing the grub bios
partition.
Now, I'm using B4, starting it with dmraid=true
Small update.
I have installed a 3rd drive to try another option. All 3 exactly the
same, 3 x 2TB.
1st drive in standard mode
Drives 2 and 3 in RAID0, splitted in 2 x 2TB folders
Installation is going weel, GRUB installed on the first disk. While
it's installating, from alt-f2 I looked
Bonjour,
il s'agit d'un server HP et d'une baie de 14 disques montés en raido via
mdadm (noyau : 2.6.26-2-amd64).
La machine tourne depuis +/- 1 an, elle est éteinte et rallumée chaque
jour sans problème, sauf ce matin!
Au boot, il ne trouve pas le fichier /dev/md0, il propose e2fsck avec un
données, en RAID0
!?
- soit il manque un chiffre (RAID10, RAID 0+1 ou RAID 1+0), en RAID0, il
n'y a aucune redondance, on perd 1 disque, on perd tout (sur 14 ça arrive
vraiment un jour)
- soit c'était joueur, et vous avez perdu
Concernant les autres questions :
S'il n'y a pas le /dev/md0, il ne
Hi, whenever I start writing more than 100MB to the raid, it starts going
200KB/s and the iowait shown on top goes to 99%.. The disks lock up
completely, shown on iostat. What would cause something like this?
Jason Myers put forth on 10/29/2010 1:31 AM:
Hi, whenever I start writing more than 100MB to the raid, it starts going
200KB/s and the iowait shown on top goes to 99%.. The disks lock up
completely, shown on iostat. What would cause something like this?
More details would probably be helpful,
On 20/07/2010 13:58, Daniel Caillibaud wrote:
JYFB Par ailleurs, si vous avez des conseils, sur le chunksize à choisir
par ex, les disques sont des X25-M, c'est pour une
JYFB
JYFB Comme le dit la doc, seule l'expérimentation peut indiquer les résultats
JYFB escomptés en fonction de
Bonjour,
Le 20/07/2010 07:54, Daniel Caillibaud a écrit :
Je vois pas mal de tutos sur le net qui mettent du LVM sur un raid0 et je me
demande quel est l'intérêt par rapport à du LVM
seul (sur deux disques avec --stripes 2). Ça ajoute un peu de complexité (même
si mdadm n'est pas sorcier, ça
Le 20/07/2010 07:54, Daniel Caillibaud a écrit :
Je vois pas mal de tutos sur le net qui mettent du LVM sur un raid0 et je me
demande quel est l'intérêt par rapport à du LVM
seul (sur deux disques avec --stripes 2). Ça ajoute un peu de complexité (même
si mdadm n'est pas sorcier, ça fait
Le 20/07/10 à 12:00, Julien Demange julien.dema...@remiremont.fr a écrit :
JD Mais sinon, qui plus est quand on souhaite utiliser LVM, je ne vois pas
JD l'intérêt de mettre mdadm alors qu'il n'y a pas de RAID (je ne considère
JD pas le raid0 comme du RAID).
OK, j'avais la même impression.
JD
Le 20/07/10 à 12:10, Jean-Yves F. Barbier 12u...@gmail.com a écrit :
JYFB Le 20/07/2010 07:54, Daniel Caillibaud a écrit :
JYFB J'ai raté un truc ?
JYFB
JYFB Le fait que lorsque tu planteras un RAID-0 ou un LVM les données seront
irrécupérables
JYFB (avec de *très* rares exceptions pour LVM.)
Le 20/07/2010 13:56, Daniel Caillibaud a écrit :
JD En plus de la surcouche, ça diminue l'intérêt de LVM. Car sur ton VG,
JD rien ne t'oblige à tout mettre en strippng. Par exemple, la swap, le
JD noyau est réputé êtres capable de bien gérer la répartition entre les
JD swap.
Donc, la swap
Bonjour,
Je vois pas mal de tutos sur le net qui mettent du LVM sur un raid0 et je me
demande quel est l'intérêt par rapport à du LVM
seul (sur deux disques avec --stripes 2). Ça ajoute un peu de complexité (même
si mdadm n'est pas sorcier, ça fait toujours ça
en plus) pour pas vraiment de
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Piszcz jpis...@lucidpixels.com wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Hi,
After setting up RAID0 using DELL SAS utility, I could try another
installation of a debian stable 503 from USB Stick.
I could not get GRUB to install
Parce que chercher une info générique sur gogol, vérifier si le ctrlr RAID
inboard est supporté ou non par le kernel et lire les *RAID*HOWTO* ça ne fait
pas partie de: utilisez votre bon sens?
Surtout que avant de faire du raid, il est bon de savoir comment ca fonctionne.
Donc de se
Bonsoir la Distribution Debian,
*Voici ma config :*
Proc : Q9300
Carte Maman : DFI LANPARTY Ultra P45-T2RS (Intel P45)
Carte graphique : ASUS 8800 GTS 512 Mo
Carte son : Créative Sound-Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty
Disques Durs : 2 WDC 640 Go + SpinPoint F1 500 Go
Configuration RAID : RAID0
Francois Simon a écrit :
...
Extrait de : http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
Section: Code de conduite
* n'envoyez jamais vos messages au format HTML ; utilisez à la place le format
texte pur
* utilisez votre bon sens.
Sans compter la signature de... 16 lignes
--
Ceux qui
Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
Extrait de : http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
Section: Code de conduite
mode vendredi=on
Je pense qu'on pourrait ajouter : poster *aussi* une réponse utile
lorsqu'on énonce les dites règles.
/mode
T.Harding
--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une
Thomas Harding a écrit :
Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
Extrait de : http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
Section: Code de conduite
mode vendredi=on
Je pense qu'on pourrait ajouter : poster *aussi* une réponse utile
lorsqu'on énonce les dites règles.
/mode
mode les jours en i c'est
Hello,
As I am trying some configurations for storage solution. I found out
that, the last block device (normally, by alphabet) in striped LV or
soft RAID 0 will have longer await. Especially in high concurrency IO.
The same time, its avgrq-sz is more than others, but rrqm/s, wrqm/s, r/s
and
Hi guys.
I've got a machine with two drives in a raid0 config.
I've added a third drive to this machine. I am not using lvm.
If I want to add this third drive in to the md device how would I go
about doing this?
I added the third drive in to the mdadm config file and set the
partition I want
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
Hi guys.
I've got a machine with two drives in a raid0 config.
I've added a third drive to this machine. I am not using lvm.
If I want to add this third drive in to the md device how would I go
about doing this?
I added the third
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
Hi guys.
I've got a machine with two drives in a raid0 config.
I've added a third drive to this machine. I am not using lvm.
If I want to add this third drive in to the md device how would I go
about doing this?
I added the third
completely different?
It is something completely different, but they compliment each other
nicely. One of the downfalls of LVM is that (like your raid0) if you
lose one disk, you pretty much lose the whole filesystem. This isn't
always true, but for practical purposes, might as well be. The
combination
Bonjour, j'ai un raid0 sur une Debian Etch avec noyau 2.6.17.
Pas de problemes mais j'ai toujours ces messages d'erreurs :
Au demarrage j'ai ce message :
Activating swap:swapon on /dev/md1
swapon: cannot stat /dev/md1: No such file or directory
failed!
Et a l'extinction :
Will now deactivate
Title: RAID0 Set-up?
Anyone have experience setting up RAID on Debian Testing etch-3 (or something similar?) I'm having a bear of a time.
Gary Catalano
On Monday 11 September 2006 19:35, Gary Catalano wrote:
Anyone have experience setting up RAID on Debian Testing etch-3 (or
something similar?) I'm having a bear of a time.
I did it, but you have to do a few things which are not straight forward.
This is approximately how I did it assuming
Saudações !
Gostaria de tirar uma dúvida com a lista. Eu tenho uma placa-mãe intel
D915-PBL e eu gostaria de adicionar um outro HD sata e ligá-los em
RAID0. Essa placa-mãe vem com uma controladora de raid, acho que eles
chamam de Intel Matrix Storage. Gostaria de saber se isso é considerado
raid
On Saturday 19 August 2006 08:24, rodrigo wrote:
Saudações !
Gostaria de tirar uma dúvida com a lista. Eu tenho uma placa-mãe intel
D915-PBL e eu gostaria de adicionar um outro HD sata e ligá-los em
RAID0. Essa placa-mãe vem com uma controladora de raid, acho que eles
chamam de Intel Matrix
Saudações !
Gostaria de tirar uma dúvida com a lista. Eu tenho uma placa-mãe intel
D915-PBL e eu gostaria de adicionar um outro HD sata e ligá-los em
RAID0. Essa placa-mãe vem com uma controladora de raid, acho que eles
chamam de Intel Matrix Storage. Gostaria de saber se isso é considerado
raid
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a
scenario:
-R0
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a scenario:
-R0-
| |
R1 R1
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1 and
RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a scenario:
-R0
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
(...)
How can I set up RAID-10 (or RAID-0 on top of RAID-1) using the Debian
installer?
(...)
Seeing how RAID-10 is still experimental in the kernel, the installer
will probably not support it for awhile. I'd suggest
]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: RAID10 on Debian (or RAID0 on top of RAID1) - possible?
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID
Larry Irwin wrote:
It is so much better to use hardware raid.
And it's even better if you properly utilize a dual-channel raid
controller.
Any ideas how to install a hardware raid controller into this device?
http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=1pid=2
It's just not possible.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Larry Irwin wrote:
It is so much better to use hardware raid.
And it's even better if you properly utilize a dual-channel raid
controller.
Any ideas how to install a hardware raid controller into this device?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
Supposing you don't have a *really* good reason to want to use the RAID10
mode (not 1+0/0+1), just use
Le mercredi 9 août 2006 16:18, Tomasz Chmielewski a écrit :
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a
scenario
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gilles Mocellin wrote:
Le mercredi 9 ao?t 2006 16:18, Tomasz Chmielewski a ?crit?:
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top
:
Bonsoir,
J'utilise deux sarge, une i686 et l'autre x86_64, qui montent les mêmes
disques en raid0.
Ça marche farpaitement bien avec la i686.
Par contre, avec la x86_64, il y a un problème.
En effet, les disques raid0 ne sont pas reconnus en tant que tel, et ne
sont pas donc montés au démarrage.
Par
Le 04/03/06, fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bonsoir,Je suis quelque peu perplexe devant le fonctionnement du RAID0 soft.Plantons d'abord le décor.Le RAID0 est constitué de deux disques durs Maxtor SATA 250 Go (6L250S0,mais de firmwares différents), sur chipset nvidia nforce4.
Les deux disques
Salut,
fred a écrit :
Après avoir lu le howto, et le manuel de mdadm, je me trouve confronté
à un problème : la copie de fichiers est extrèmement lente, de fs non
raid à fs raid ou de raid à raid.
Pourtant, un hdparm sur les fs raid me donnent des résultats tout à fait
corrects, puisque le
fred a écrit :
Je viens de faire un time sur un tar d'un rpertoire de 200 Mo sur le
sda et sur le sdb : les temps sont identiques.
Identiques à quoi ?
Tu pourrais donner des chiffres concrets, pour qu'on se rendre compte ?
- débit en écriture sur sda et sdb hors RAID
- débit en écriture sur
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:51 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
That's why I qualified my statement with large bits of data.
[snip]
but if your files are less than one chunk-size... does that mean
it all gets written to one disk ??
With raid 0, I think so.
Hi all,
I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with
them using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that
after configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is
slower than each of the disks individually. Look at the numbers:
hdparm -Tt /dev
I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with them
using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that after
configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is slower than
each of the disks individually. Look at the numbers:
SNIP!
Just curious
What kernel are you running? I don't have it that bad, with 2.6.13, but it's
definately slower than earlier 2.6 kernels. raid0 performance used to be
very good. raid1 has always sucked (reads no faster than a single drive).
/dev/md0:
Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in 3.01 seconds = 107.06 MB
:
Timing buffered disk reads: 134 MB in 3.04 seconds = 44.09 MB/sec
What kernel are you running? I don't have it that bad, with 2.6.13, but it's
definately slower than earlier 2.6 kernels. raid0 performance used to be
very good. raid1 has always sucked (reads no faster than a single drive).
How
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:35:05AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
single drive. Writing is where the performance is not nearly as good.
But the, I am using IDE drives with each of the two drive son its own
channel.
Not
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:33:05AM -0500, Tom Vier wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:35:05AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
single drive. Writing is where the performance is not nearly as good.
But the, I am using IDE
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
