H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
device /dev/sda (hd0)
root (hd0,0)
install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0)
/boot/grub/e2fs_stage1_5 p /boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/menu.lst
device /dev/hdc (hd0)
root (hd0,0)
install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/stage1
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
To whom it may concern,
It seems mdadm does not check, warn, abort, or etc if a partition has
an incorrect file system type. This has come up for me on a few
occasions while building servers with software raid. On one occasion I
had a machine fully up and
Michael Stumpf wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Michael Stumpf wrote:
This is the drive I think is most suspect. What isn't obvious,
because it isn't listed in the self test log, is between #1 and #2
there was an aborted, hung test. The #4 short test that was
aborted was also a hung test
David Rees wrote:
On 2/25/07, Richard Scobie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin Simpson wrote:
They therefore do not have the check option in the kernel. Is there
anything else I can do? Would forcing a resync achieve the same result
(or is that down right dangerous as the array is not
dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Robin Bowes wrote:
I'm running RAID6 instead of RAID5+1 - I've had a couple of instances
where a drive has failed in a RAID5+1 array and a second has failed
during the rebuild after the hot-spare had kicked in.
if the failures were read errors
Nikolai Joukov wrote:
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/docs/joukov-phdthesis/thesis.pdf
Figures 9.7 and 9.8 also show profiles of the Linux RAID5 and RAIF5
operation under the same Postmark workload.
Nikolai.
-
Nikolai Joukov, Ph.D.
Filesystems and Storage Laboratory
Stony
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Sandra L. McGrew wrote:
I have two hard drives installed in this DELL GX110 Optiplex computer. I
believe that they are configured in RAID5, but am not certain. Is
there a
graphical method of determining how many drives are being used and
how they
Gordon Henderson wrote:
I'm building a little test server and I wanted ~500GB of storage with
2-drive redundancy, so the best price vs. num. drives vs. the need for 2
drive redundancy came to 4 x 250GB drives. (And I have a mobo with 5 SATA
ports, and taking into account case power
Mitchell Laks wrote:
Hi,
Thank you all for all of your work on this topic.
1) I apologize for my email bouncing. I have no real choice in dsl service.
Perhaps I will consider cable to prevent my mail bouncing! :)
2) I am able to hang 10 drives on 3 of the Promise SATA150 TX4 cards. So far
Daniel Pittman wrote:
Francois Barre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
G'day Francois.
Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this
solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in
the months to come... Performance is absolutely not a big issue for
me,
Francois Barre wrote:
2006/1/5, berk walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
Ext3 does have a fine record. Might I also suggest an added expense of
18 1/2% and do RAID6 for better protection against data loss?
b-
Well, I guess so. I just hope I'll be given enough money for it, since
Czigola Gabor wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, berk walker wrote:
I don 't think that will help you, per se. Why do you say it is your
last chance? If you have n-1 disks OK, then you may be OK. If not, a
spare will not help. Can you tell us more?
b-
So there is a RAID5 array with 4 disks. I
Czigola Gabor wrote:
Hello all!
I'm not sure, that is this the right place to ask such question, but
I'm in a big trouble with my RAID5 array.
My last chance to get any of the data back stored in this array, is to
unspare a spare disk, that is untouched since the removal.
I googled but
Spencer Tuttle wrote:
Is it possible to have /boot on /dev/md_d0p1 in a RAID5 configuration
and boot with GRUB?
Spencer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Neil Brown wrote:
Why is it that people never complain about having to put information
in /etc/fstab about what to mount, but they cannot cope with having to
put similar information in /etc/mdadm.conf about what to assemble??
Maybe fstab already exists and is pretty readable, and from which a
Brad Dameron wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 20:38 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
The components are 12x400GB drives attached to a 3ware 9500s-12
controller. They are configured as single disks on the controller,
ie: no hardware RAID is
Lewis Shobbrook wrote:
On Thursday 25 August 2005 7:14 pm, you wrote:
Fdisk it and set partitions to Raid Autodetect (0xfd) possibly?
Tyler.
Nope already set fd
Lewis Shobbrook wrote:
Hi All,
I have a problem attempting to boot a raid 1 system from lilo. I have
as I understand it, the topic is what happens when a RAID0 which is
split twixt remote sites loses communication. What would you suggest as
a method to keep the obvious from happening?
A proactive approach, perhaps? Since, it seems, that write requests do
not have to be ack'd immediatly,
berk walker wrote:
as I understand it, the topic is what happens when a RAID0 which is
split twixt remote sites loses communication. What would you suggest
as a method to keep the obvious from happening?
oops! RAID1.. sorry
A proactive approach, perhaps? Since, it seems, that write requests
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2005-03-19T12:44:14, Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of a split brain, I think one must be 100% voided, and a full
re-sync must be done.
Exactly. And that's where the bitmaps come into play; you can look at
what is modified on each side, merge those
Already are, John. mdadm, and two or three others.
b-
John Poirier wrote:
Greets,
A lot of RAID 5 hardware controllers can grow a RAID 5 array (online
capacity expansion). Will this be available in software RAID?
John
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
What might the proper [or functional] syntax be to do this?
I'm running 2.6.10-1.766-FC3, and mdadm 1.90.
Thanks for the time.
b-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Do you want a glass or some cheese?
Actually, I am thinking that your main problem is a generic [almost]
BIOS issue, as no one in right mind would expect your configuration.
Might I suggest a somewhat more expensive, yet safer work-around?
Split your drives between more boxes and gigabite link
I seem to remember that one can create a degraded array. Then copy over,
and shoot the old disk and add it to the aray.
b-
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:01:12 +0100, Robert Heinzmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
can someone verify if the following statements are true ?
- It's not possible to
I think it might be a good idea to check memory, and power supply. I have
had several motherboards where the IDE channels went bad. I have become a
believer of not using exact same drives in an array, because today's
quality control in manufacturing (not design nor testing) Clones may have
In the past, I have found the quite often, too often, the disk errors
happened in the 1st sectors of the disk (and I still have to reboot
often). It does not look good when losing a whole disk, eh?
b-
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:16:31 -0500, Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It rotates the pairs!
26 matches
Mail list logo
