On 2/26/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday February 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that rear errors will be noticed by the MD system,
> either.
:-) Your typing is nearly as bad as mine often is, but your intent is
correct. If you independently read from a devic
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 c
Colin Simpson wrote:
SATA isn't supported on RH 4's SMART.
False. Works just fine.
Jeff
-
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
On Monday February 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Colin Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I say,
> >
> > dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null
> >
> > where /dev/sda2 is a component of an active md device.
> >
> > Will the RAID subsystem get upset that someone else is fiddling with the
>
On 2/26/07, Colin Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I say,
dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null
where /dev/sda2 is a component of an active md device.
Will the RAID subsystem get upset that someone else is fiddling with the
disk (even in just a read only way)? And will a read error on this dd
(cau
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 at 5:26pm, Colin Simpson wrote
SATA isn't supported on RH 4's SMART.
Not true (for many SATA chipsets at least). Just pass '-d ata' to
smartctl.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 08:56 -0800, David Rees wrote:
>
> > You could configure smartd to do regular long selftests, which would
> > notify you on failures and allow you to take the drive offline and dd,
> > replace etc.
>
> So what do you do when your drives in your array don't support SMART
> se
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 considered
> consisten
Colin Simpson wrote:
Hi,
We had a small server here that was configured with a RAID 1 mirror,
using two IDE disks.
Last week one of the drives failed in this. So we replaced the drive and
set the array to rebuild. The "good" disk then found a bad block and the
mirror failed.
Now I presume t
Mark Hahn wrote:
is it known what a long self-test does? for instance, ultimately you
want the disk to be scrubbed over some fairly lengthy period of time.
that is, not just read and checked, possibly with parity "fixed",
but all blocks read and rewritten (with verify, I suppose!)
The smartct
You could configure smartd to do regular long selftests, which would notify
you on failures and allow you to take the drive offline and dd, replace etc.
is it known what a long self-test does? for instance, ultimately you
want the disk to be scrubbed over some fairly lengthy period of time.
tha
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 considered
consistent for a while). Any thoughts apart from my one being to upgra
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 14:55 -0500, Steve Cousins wrote:
> Yes, this is an important thing to keep on top of, both for hardware
> RAID and software RAID. For md:
>
> echo check > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action
>
> This should be done regularly. I have cron do it once a week.
>
> Check out:
Neil Brown wrote:
The 'check' process reads all copies and compares them with one
another, If there is a difference it is reported. If you use
'repair' instead of 'check', the difference is arbitrarily corrected.
If a read error is detected during the 'check', md/raid1 will attempt
to write th
On Friday February 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We had a small server here that was configured with a RAID 1 mirror,
> using two IDE disks.
>
> Last week one of the drives failed in this. So we replaced the drive and
> set the array to rebuild. The "good" disk then found a bad block a
This is the most useful thing I have found in a long time!
p34:~# echo check > /sys/block/md0/md/sync_action
$ cat /sys/block/md[0-4]/md/mismatch_cnt
512
0
0
0
0
Wow!
Justin.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Steve Cousins wrote:
Colin Simpson wrote:
Hi,
We had a small server here that was configured wi
Colin Simpson wrote:
Hi,
We had a small server here that was configured with a RAID 1 mirror,
using two IDE disks.
Last week one of the drives failed in this. So we replaced the drive and
set the array to rebuild. The "good" disk then found a bad block and the
mirror failed.
Now I presume t
Hi,
We had a small server here that was configured with a RAID 1 mirror,
using two IDE disks.
Last week one of the drives failed in this. So we replaced the drive and
set the array to rebuild. The "good" disk then found a bad block and the
mirror failed.
Now I presume that the "good" disk must
18 matches
Mail list logo
