David Shaw wrote:
I'm not sure whether this is problem of sata_sil24 or dm layer. Cc'ing
linux-raid for help. How much memory do you have? One big difference
between ata_piix and sata_sil24 is that sil24 can handle 64bit DMA.
Maybe dma mapping or something interacts weirdly with dm there?
On Wednesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did the asynchronous write stuff (as it was in fr1) ever get into kernel
software raid?
Hmmm... what was 'fr1' again??.. asks google.
http://www.it.uc3m.es/ptb/fr1/
Yes, that sound like the 'bitmap' support currently in md.
The bitmap is stored
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
Server. Here are the details:
Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A
Board: Asus DSBV-D (
When I configure a 2.6.19-rc5 linux kernel for built-in raid support,
I do not get the expected /proc/mdstat entry. I set the following
kernel parameters for this :
CONFIG_MD=Y
BLK_DEV_MD=y
MD_RAID0=y
When I configure the kernel for modular raid support in otherwise
identical fashion, I do
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Lars Schimmer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed
Server. Here are the details:
Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:54:50 +1000
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The resierfs filesystem is trying to access beyond the end of the
raid1 array. Maybe some indexing information in the array is
corrupted.
Did you recreate the array (mdadm --create) after changing to the new
drivers? If
On Thursday July 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:54:50 +1000
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The resierfs filesystem is trying to access beyond the end of the
raid1 array. Maybe some indexing information in the array is
corrupted.
Did you recreate the array
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:14:31 +1000
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does
od -D -j 65536 -N 4 /dev/md1
show. This is the size the reiserfs thinks it is using. Multiply by
4 and you should get 77642048 or maybe a little less. If you get
more, then reiserfs think the device is
On Thursday July 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:14:31 +1000
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does
od -D -j 65536 -N 4 /dev/md1
show. This is the size the reiserfs thinks it is using. Multiply by
4 and you should get 77642048 or maybe a little less.
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first
partion, but there are many partitions after that, which I hope should
On 7/20/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
/dev/null ?
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first
partion, but
On 7/19/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first
partion, but there are many
Al Boldi wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first
partion, but there are many partitions after that,
On 7/20/07, Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:13:03AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:13:03AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first
partion,
On 7/20/07, Dave Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/20/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
/dev/null ?
withdraw my wrong comment.
at least
16 matches
Mail list logo