On Tuesday July 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
II. *MDADM --GROW*
- The current total of critical data happen to fit within 300GB.
What do you think if I :
- copy all the critical data to the newer 320GB drive.
- create a new RAID-5 set with the original 300GB drives (the set will
have
Tobias Rehn wrote:
Hey Guys,
I am currently having a strange problem. I have a system with 4
onboard sata ports. The system also has four 4-port sata controllers
plugged into it.
The raid works fine but if i reboot the system, sometimes my harddisks
are mixed up so that my system disk
mullaly wrote:
[]
All works well until a system reboot. md2 appears to be brought up before
md0 and md1 which causes the raid to start without two of its drives.
Is there anyway to fix this?
How about listing the arrays in proper order in mdadm.conf ?
/mjt
-
To unsubscribe from this list
Hey Guys,
I am currently having a strange problem. I have a system with 4 onboard
sata ports. The system also has four 4-port sata controllers plugged
into it.
The raid works fine but if i reboot the system, sometimes my harddisks
are mixed up so that my system disk(normally sda
table my system was normal,
and a fdisk -l /dev/sdb give me the right table (but my disk was
disconnected ...).
Thanks for paying attention of my problem :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
Johny Mail list wrote:
2007/7/3, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Brad Campbell wrote:
Johny Mail list wrote:
Hello list,
I have a little question about software RAID on Linux.
I have installed Software Raid on all my SC1425 servers DELL by
believing that the md raid was a strong driver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2007/6/26, Brad Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Johny Mail list wrote:
Hello list,
I have a little question about software RAID on Linux.
I have installed Software Raid on all my SC1425 servers DELL by
believing that the md raid was a strong driver.
And recently i make some test on a server
Hello list,
I have a little question about software RAID on Linux.
I have installed Software Raid on all my SC1425 servers DELL by
believing that the md raid was a strong driver.
And recently i make some test on a server and try to view if the RAID
hard drive power failure work fine, so i power
Johny Mail list wrote:
Hello list,
I have a little question about software RAID on Linux.
I have installed Software Raid on all my SC1425 servers DELL by
believing that the md raid was a strong driver.
And recently i make some test on a server and try to view if the RAID
hard drive power failure
On Wednesday January 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have for a long time been wondering if it is possible to convert a 2
disk Raid-1 array to a 3 disk Raid-5 array using mdadm?
Tonight I stumbled upon this article:
http://www.n8gray.org/blog/2006/09/05/stupid-raid-tricks-with-evms
I've seen a few comments to the effect that some disks have problems when
used in a RAID setup and I'm a bit preplexed as to why this might be..
What's the difference between a drive in a RAID set (either s/w or h/w)
and a drive on it's own, assuming the load, etc. is roughly the same in
each
On Wednesday June 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen a few comments to the effect that some disks have problems when
used in a RAID setup and I'm a bit preplexed as to why this might be..
What's the difference between a drive in a RAID set (either s/w or h/w)
and a drive on it's own
On 2 Jun 2006, Uwe Meyer-Gruhl uttered the following:
Neil's suggestion indicates that there may be a race condition
stacking md and dm over each other, but I have not yet tested that
patch. I once had problems stacking cryptoloop over RAID-6, so it
might really be a stacking problem. We don't
far is:
1. There are problems with the combination of RAID and device mapper
(e.g. for encrypted filesystems). The thread started off with this
observation.
2. There are filesystem corruptions with heavy loads (i.e. copying big
files or many files to the filesystem). The bug usually takes long
Ken wrote:
Hello,
We have a Red Hat 7.1 box running kernel 2.4.17-SMP. We have
raidtools installed. We had a hardware RAID that got converted to a
software raid by mistake. Is there any way to go back without
loosing the data? the device is showing up as /dev/md0. Thank you.
1
Thank you for your reply. It is a little more than a terabyte worth of
information. And although we have everything backed up on tape, it
will take a very long time to restore it. The reason we need to do this
is because when it was converted to software RAID, we lost a lot of
performance
linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Francois Barre wrote:
2006/2/17, Gordon Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, berk walker wrote:
RAID-6 *will* give you your required 2-drive redundancy.
Anyway, if you wish to resize your setup to 5 drives
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand
(any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times
now, I'm begining to think it can't (unless you are lucky!) So maybe I'll
just stick with Raid-6 as I know
out quiet well, and cheaper than 2 x 500GB drives!)
So RAID-6, which I have have been using for a year or so now with good
results, or RAID-10, which I've never used.
I suspect RAID-10 might give me more performance, not having the parity
calculations to do, but is it stable and reliable? I've
, etc. 4 drives has
worked out quiet well, and cheaper than 2 x 500GB drives!)
So RAID-6, which I have have been using for a year or so now with good
results, or RAID-10, which I've never used.
I suspect RAID-10 might give me more performance, not having the parity
calculations to do
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, berk walker wrote:
RAID-6 *will* give you your required 2-drive redundancy.
Hm. I was under the impression (mistakenly?) that RAID10 (as opposed to
RAID1+0) would give me 2 disk redundancy in far mode, however maybe I need
to re-read the stuff on RAID10 again ...
Gordon
2006/2/17, Gordon Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, berk walker wrote:
RAID-6 *will* give you your required 2-drive redundancy.
Anyway, if you wish to resize your setup to 5 drives one day or
another, I guess raid 6 would be preferable, because one day or
another, a patch
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Francois Barre wrote:
2006/2/17, Gordon Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, berk walker wrote:
RAID-6 *will* give you your required 2-drive redundancy.
Anyway, if you wish to resize your setup to 5 drives one day or
another, I guess raid 6 would
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:14:37PM +, Gordon Henderson wrote:
Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand
(any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times
now, I'm begining to think it can't (unless you are lucky!) So maybe I'll
just stick
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Andy Smith wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:14:37PM +, Gordon Henderson wrote:
Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand
(any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times
now, I'm begining to think it can't
Mark Hahn wrote:
They seem to suggest RAID 0 is faster for reading than RAID 1, and I
can't figure out why.
with R0, streaming from two disks involves no seeks;
with R1, a single stream will have to read, say 0-64K from the first disk,
and 64-128K from the second. these could happen
beings, who are almost unique in having the ability
to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable
for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories
to suit facts. -- Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Wednesday January 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Hahn wrote:
They seem to suggest RAID 0 is faster for reading than RAID 1, and I
can't figure out why.
with R0, streaming from two disks involves no seeks;
with R1, a single stream will have to read, say 0-64K from the first disk
Max Waterman wrote:
Mark Hahn wrote:
They seem to suggest RAID 0 is faster for reading than RAID 1, and I
can't figure out why.
with R0, streaming from two disks involves no seeks;
with R1, a single stream will have to read, say 0-64K from the first
disk,
and 64-128K from the second
by the drives' cache...
Max.
Max Waterman wrote:
Hi,
I've been reading a bit about RAID 1 vs RAID 0 on these pages :
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/single_Level1.htm
They seem to suggest RAID 0 is faster for reading than RAID 1, and I
can't figure out why.
Clearly, the write
They seem to suggest RAID 0 is faster for reading than RAID 1, and I
can't figure out why.
with R0, streaming from two disks involves no seeks;
with R1, a single stream will have to read, say 0-64K from the first disk,
and 64-128K from the second. these could happen at the same time
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 involved.
A quick question for you, because I have a client
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 involved.
A quick
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
support is also more upt to date.
Brad Dameron
SeaTab Software
www.seatab.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Well, perhaps I'm mistaken in my wording...
I have currently what I call a 01, but perhaps it's really called a 10. It's
2 sets of 3 partitions striped into a RAID 0 set, then mirrored. So, it's
striped, and then mirrored, hence 01. Now, for 10, I attempted to create 3
RAID 1 mirroes
41 matches
Mail list logo
