also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.06.0245 +0200]:
With the check feature of the recent md feature, the question popped
up what happens when an inconsistency is found. Does it fix it? If
so, which disk it assumes to be wrong if an inconsistency is found?
What I meant was of
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.06.0245 +0200]:
With the check feature of the recent md feature, the question popped
up what happens when an inconsistency is found. Does it fix it? If
so, which disk it assumes to be wrong if an inconsistency is
The first time it reports that it found (and repaired) 128 items.
It does not mean that you now *have* 128 mismatches.
The next run ('repair' or 'check') will find none (hopefully...)
and report zero.
Oh, this makes perfect sense, thanks for the explanation.
As the mdadm maintainer for
very same question. Is the behavior you are describing above
manufacturer dependent or it is pretty much dictated by the general
design of modern drives?
the latter. the industry keyword is Zone Bit Recording, which
simply tries to record data as densely as possible - determined
by linear
On Sun, 06 May 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
Maybe the ideal way would be to have mdadm --monitor send an email on
mismatch_count0 or a cronjob that regularly sends reminders, until the
admin logs in and runs e.g. /usr/share/mdadm/repairarray.
Also, if a mismatch is found on a RAID1, how
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
design of modern drives? I have an array of 4 Maxtor sata drives, and
raw read performance at the end of the disk is 38mb/s compared to 62mb/s
at the beginning.
At least one supplier of terabyte arrays mitigates this effect and
improves seek times, by using 750GB
On Sunday May 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007, martin f krafft wrote:
Maybe the ideal way would be to have mdadm --monitor send an email on
mismatch_count0 or a cronjob that regularly sends reminders, until the
admin logs in and runs e.g. /usr/share/mdadm/repairarray.
You
On Friday May 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Hi,
I asked this question back in march but received no answers, so here it
goes again. Is it safe to replace raid1 with raid10 where the amount of
disks is equal to the amount of far/near/offset copies? I understand it
On Friday May 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy Watkins
} Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:52 PM
} To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: RAID6 question
}
} I read in processor.com
On Wednesday May 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am using Debian 3.1 (sarge) with 2.6.17.13-gen64-smp kernel.
I have storage of 53 TB (6 units with 9.5 T). All of them are stripped
(Raid0) using mdadm 1.9.0. On this unit have created with LVM2 Volume
Group and 3 logical Volumes. One
10 matches
Mail list logo
