Recently Dean Gaudet, in thread titled 'Feature
Request/Suggestion - Drive Linking', mentioned his
document, http://arctic.org/~dean/proactive-raid5-disk-replacement.txt
I've read it, and have some umm.. concerns. Here's why:
mdadm -Gb internal --bitmap-chunk=1024 /dev/md4
mdadm /dev/md4
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Recently Dean Gaudet, in thread titled 'Feature
Request/Suggestion - Drive Linking', mentioned his
document, http://arctic.org/~dean/proactive-raid5-disk-replacement.txt
I've read it, and have some umm.. concerns. Here's why:
mdadm -Gb
Hi Bill,
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:42:53 -0400
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Smith wrote:
Interesting, but do you run other stuff at that time? Several
distributions run various things in the middle of the night which really
bog the machine.
Doesn't look like it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
I´ve got a software RAiD5 with 6 250GB HDs.
Now I changed one disk after another to a 400GB HD and resynced the
raid5 after each change.
Now the RAID5 has got 6 400GB HDs and still uses only 6*250GB space.
How can I grow the md0 device to use
Hi!
I´ve got a software RAiD5 with 6 250GB HDs.
Now I changed one disk after another to a 400GB HD and resynced the
raid5 after each change.
Now the RAID5 has got 6 400GB HDs and still uses only 6*250GB space.
How can I grow the md0 device to use 6*400GB?
MfG,
Lars Schimmer
--
Lars Schimmer wrote:
Hi!
I´ve got a software RAiD5 with 6 250GB HDs.
Now I changed one disk after another to a 400GB HD and resynced the
raid5 after each change.
Now the RAID5 has got 6 400GB HDs and still uses only 6*250GB space.
How can I grow the md0 device to use 6*400GB?
mdadm --grow
dean gaudet wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Recently Dean Gaudet, in thread titled 'Feature
Request/Suggestion - Drive Linking', mentioned his
document, http://arctic.org/~dean/proactive-raid5-disk-replacement.txt
I've read it, and have some umm.. concerns. Here's why:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Lars Schimmer wrote:
Hi!
I´ve got a software RAiD5 with 6 250GB HDs.
Now I changed one disk after another to a 400GB HD and resynced the
raid5 after each change.
Now the RAID5 has got 6 400GB HDs and still uses only
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 02:26:31PM +0200, Lars Schimmer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Lars Schimmer wrote:
Hi!
I´ve got a software RAiD5 with 6 250GB HDs.
Now I changed one disk after another to a 400GB HD and resynced the
raid5 after each
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Lars Schimmer wrote:
[]
mdadm --grow is your friend.
Oh, damn, right. I was focussed on --grow to add a new HD to the RAID
But isn´t there a switch to grow to max possible value?
Do I always have to search for the
Folks,
I messed up slightly when creating a new 6-disk raid6 array, and am wondering
if there is a simple answer. The problem is that I didn't partition the drives,
but simply used the whole drive. All drives are of the same type and using the
Supermicro SAT2-MV8 controller.
This is a problem
Hello list.
I have a spot of trouble with a RAID5 array of mine, and I thought maybe you
could help me.
This is the story so far:
* I bought 10 external USB drives. This seemed like a good idea, they are
cheap, they are hot-pluggable and they are fast enough.
* I set them up in two RAID5
Hello list.
I have a spot of trouble with a RAID5 array of mine, and I thought maybe
you could help me.
This is the story so far:
* I bought 10 external USB drives. This seemed like a good idea, they are
cheap, they are hot-pluggable and they are fast enough.
* I set them up in two RAID5
Hello Neil Luca ,
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 02:26:31PM +0200, Lars Schimmer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Lars Schimmer wrote:
Hi!
I´ve got a software RAiD5 with 6 250GB HDs.
Now I changed one disk
On 9/8/06, Ruth Ivimey-Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I messed up slightly when creating a new 6-disk raid6 array, and am wondering
if there is a simple answer. The problem is that I didn't partition the drives,
but simply used the whole drive. All drives are of the same type and using the
If I have specified an array in mdadm.conf using UUID's:
ARRAY /dev/md0 UUID=3aaa0122:29827cfa:5331ad66:ca767371
and I replace a failed drive in the array, will the new drive be given
the previous UUID, or do I need to upate the mdadm.conf entry?
Regards,
Richard
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Richard Scobie wrote:
If I have specified an array in mdadm.conf using UUID's:
ARRAY /dev/md0 UUID=3aaa0122:29827cfa:5331ad66:ca767371
and I replace a failed drive in the array, will the new drive be given the
previous UUID, or do I need to upate the mdadm.conf
dean gaudet wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Richard Scobie wrote:
If I have specified an array in mdadm.conf using UUID's:
ARRAY /dev/md0 UUID=3aaa0122:29827cfa:5331ad66:ca767371
and I replace a failed drive in the array, will the new drive be given the
previous UUID, or do I need to upate the
If I have a RAID 10, comprising a RAID 0, /dev/md3 made up of RAID1,
/dev/md1 and RAID1, /dev/md2 and I do an:
echo repair /sys/block/md3/md/sync_action
will this run simultaneous repairs on the the underlying RAID 1's, or
should seperate repairs be done to md1 and 2?
Thanks for any
I got the following on 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 when trying to lvextend a test
logical volume that I had just created. This came about because I
have been trying to expand some LVs on my system, which are based on a
VG ontop of an MD mirror pair. It's an SMP box too if that means
anything.
20 matches
Mail list logo
