On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:25:28 -0500, Norman Elton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[ ... ]
normelton The box presents 48 drives, split across 6 SATA
normelton controllers. So disks sda-sdh are on one controller,
normelton etc. In our configuration, I run a RAID5 MD array for
normelton each controller,
Pure genius! I wonder how many Thumpers have been configured in
this well thought out way :-).
I'm sorry I missed your contributions to the discussion a few weeks ago.
As I said up front, this is a test system. We're still trying a number
of different configurations, and are learning how
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:12:30 -0500, Norman Elton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[ ... ]
normelton Assuming we go with Guy's layout of 8 arrays of 6
normelton drives (picking one from each controller),
Guy Watkins proposed another one too:
«Assuming the 6 controllers are equal, I would make 3 16
Peter Grandi wrote:
In general, I'd use RAID10 (http://WWW.BAARF.com/), RAID5 in
Interesting movement. What do you think is their stance on Raid Fix? :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Tuesday February 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I had my first failure today, when I got a report that one drive
(/dev/sdam) failed. I've attached the output of mdadm --detail. It
appears that two drives are listed as removed, but the array is
still functioning. What does this mean? How
How many drives actually failed?
Failed Devices : 1
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Norman Elton wrote:
So I had my first failure today, when I got a report that one drive
(/dev/sdam) failed. I've attached the output of mdadm --detail. It
appears that two drives are listed as removed, but the array is
Neil,
Is this a bug?
Also, I have a question for Norman-- how come your drives are sda[a-z]1?
Typically it is /dev/sda1 /dev/sdb1 etc?
Justin.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Norman Elton wrote:
But why do two show up as removed?? I would expect /dev/sdal1 to show up
someplace, either active or
But why do two show up as removed?? I would expect /dev/sdal1 to
show up someplace, either active or failed.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Norman
On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
How many drives actually failed?
Failed Devices : 1
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Norman Elton wrote:
So
Justin,
This is a Sun X4500 (Thumper) box, so it's got 48 drives inside.
/dev/sd[a-z] are all there as well, just in other RAID sets. Once you
get to /dev/sdz, it starts up at /dev/sdaa, sdab, etc.
I'd be curious if what I'm experiencing is a bug. What should I try to
restore the array?
Norman
Norman,
I am extremely interested in what distribution you are running on it and
what type of SW raid you are employing (besides the one you showed here),
are all 48 drives filled, or?
Justin.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Norman Elton wrote:
Justin,
This is a Sun X4500 (Thumper) box, so it's got
Justin,
There was actually a discussion I fired off a few weeks ago about how
to best run SW RAID on this hardware. Here's the recap:
We're running RHEL, so no access to ZFS/XFS. I really wish we could do
ZFS, but no luck.
The box presents 48 drives, split across 6 SATA controllers. So disks
The box presents 48 drives, split across 6 SATA controllers.
So disks sda-sdh are on one controller, etc. In our
configuration, I run a RAID5 MD array for each controller,
then run LVM on top of these to form one large VolGroup.
I might be missing something here, and I realise you'd
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Fairbairn
} Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:45 PM
} To: 'Norman Elton'
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: RE: How many drives are bad?
}
}
}
} The box presents 48
13 matches
Mail list logo
