On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To give you an example I get 464MB/s write and
627MB/s with a 10 disk
raptor software raid5.
Is that with the 9650?
Andrew
Sorry no, its with software raid 5 and the 965 chipset + three SATA PCI-e
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
You are using HW RAID then? Those numbers seem pretty awful for that
setup, including linux-raid@ even it though it appears you're running HW
raid, this is rather peculiar.
No, it has been discussed numerous times on this list.
SW raid is faster
Bryan Christ wrote:
My apologies if this is not the right place to ask this question.
Hopefully it is.
I created a RAID5 array with:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=5 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1
/dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1
mdadm -D /dev/md0 verifies the devices has a persistent
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bryan Christ wrote:
My apologies if this is not the right place to ask this question. Hopefully
it is.
I created a RAID5 array with:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=5 /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1
/dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1
mdadm -D
Daniel Korstad wrote:
That was true up to kernel 2.6.21 and 2.6 mdadm where support for RAID 6 reshape arrived.
I have reshaped (added additional drives) to my RAID 6 twice now with no problems in the past few months.
You mentioned that as the only disadvantage. There are other things to
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To give you an example I get 464MB/s write and
627MB/s with a 10 disk
raptor software raid5.
Is that with the 9650?
Andrew
Sorry no,
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To give you an example I get 464MB/s write and
627MB/s with a 10 disk
raptor software raid5.
Is that with the
--- Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take your 3ware HW-raid, do a dd (read or write) to
the device and see it
being very quick (because it can fit all the data
into its cache as it
either reads or writes), then put a filesystem on it
and do writes there,
especially journaled
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
03:00.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI
3132 Serial ATA Raid
II Controller (rev 01)
$19.99 2 port SYBA cards (Silicon Image 3132s)
http://www.directron.com/sdsa2pex2ir.html
Cool, thanks.
What are your bonnie++ rewrite numbers?
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
--- Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
03:00.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI
3132 Serial ATA Raid
II Controller (rev 01)
$19.99 2 port SYBA cards (Silicon Image 3132s)
http://www.directron.com/sdsa2pex2ir.html
Cool, thanks.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bryan Christ wrote:
My apologies if this is not the right place to ask this question.
Hopefully it is.
I created a RAID5 array with:
mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5
hi, everyone.. i have a problem.
SUMMARY
i've got a linux software RAID1 setup, with 2 SATA drives (/dev/sdf1,
/dev/sdg1) set up to be /dev/md0. these 2 drives together hold my
/home directories. the / and / partitions are on another drive, a
standard parallel IDE (/dev/hda). (I can provide
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, jeff stern wrote:
hi, everyone.. i have a problem.
SUMMARY
i've got a linux software RAID1 setup, with 2 SATA drives (/dev/sdf1,
/dev/sdg1) set up to be /dev/md0. these 2 drives together hold my
/home directories. the / and / partitions are on another drive, a
standard
When configuring RAID arrays, advanced users should be offered the
option to set the chunk size. And using ext3 or any other f/s which
knows a little about RAID, the stride= option check be set to the size
of a stripe, the number of data drives times the chunk size.
Booting a rescue or
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello All , I was under the impression that a 'machine check' would
be caused by some near to the CPU hardware failure , Not a bad disk ?
I was also under the impression that software raid s/b a little more
resilient than this .
But
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. James W. Laferriere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All , I was under the impression that a 'machine check' would be
caused by some near to the CPU hardware failure , Not a bad disk ?
It indicates a hardware failure
Jul 14 23:00:26
Hello Alan ( Justin) ,
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. James W. Laferriere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All , I was under the impression that a 'machine check' would be
caused by some near to the CPU hardware failure , Not
17 matches
Mail list logo
