[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all,
Hi
First off, don't do anything else without reading up or talking on here :)
The list archive has got a lot of good material - 'help' is usually a good
search term!!!
>
> I had a disk fail in a raid 5 array (4 disk array, no spares), and am
> having troub
Heres an oddity - Just built a server with 15 external disks over 2 SAS
channels and I've noticed that the kernel is saying it's RAID5 rather than
RAID6 ...
Hard to explain what I mean in words, but:
bertha:~# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md9 : a
Am Montag, 23. Oktober 2006 18:43 schrieben Sie:
Sound familiar... two things: what exact LVM2 version are you using there?
Could you try and shutdown the machine completely till power off and cold boot
it a couple of times and see if the issue persists?
Dex
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Dexter Filmore wrote:
Am Montag, 23. Oktober 2006 18:43 schrieben Sie:
Sound familiar... two things: what exact LVM2 version are you using there?
Could you try and shutdown the machine completely till power off and cold boot
it a couple of times and see if the issue persists?
Yes, shutting do
Gordon Henderson wrote:
>1747 ?S< 724:25 [md9_raid5]
>
> It's kernel 2.6.18 and
Wasn't the module merged to raid456 in 2.6.18?
Are your mdx_raid6's earlier kernels. My raid 6 is on 2.7.17 and says _raid6
Could it be that the combined kernel thread is called mdX_raid5
David
-
To
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, David Greaves wrote:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
> >1747 ?S< 724:25 [md9_raid5]
> >
> > It's kernel 2.6.18 and
>
> Wasn't the module merged to raid456 in 2.6.18?
Ah, was it? I might have missed that...
> Are your mdx_raid6's earlier kernels. My raid 6 is on 2.7.1
David Greaves wrote:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>>1747 ?S< 724:25 [md9_raid5]
>>
>> It's kernel 2.6.18 and
>
> Wasn't the module merged to raid456 in 2.6.18?
>
> Are your mdx_raid6's earlier kernels. My raid 6 is on 2.7.17 and says _raid6
>
> Could it be that the combined kernel thr
Hi,
I cannot find authoritative information about the relation between
the RAID chunk size and the correct stride parameter to use when
creating an ext2/3 filesystem.
My understanding is that (block * stride) == (chunk). So if I create
a default RAID5/10 with 64k chunks, and create a filesystem w
Henrik Holst wrote:
Bodo Thiesen wrote:
Ken Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is LVM stable, or can it cause more problems than separate raids on a array.
[description of street smart raid setup]
(The same function could probably be achieved with logical partitions
and ordin
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> My read on LVM is that (a) it's one more thing for the admin to learn, (b)
> because it's seldom used the admin will be working from documentation if it
> has a problem, and (c) there is no bug-free software, therefore the use of LVM
> on top of RAID wil
Chase Venters wrote:
Greetings,
I was just testing a server I was about to send into production on kernel
2.6.18.1. The server has three SCSI disks with "md1" set to a RAID1 with 2
mirrors and 1 spare.
I have to ask, why? If the array is mostly written you might save a bit
of bus time, but
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:41, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Chase Venters wrote:
> >Greetings,
> > I was just testing a server I was about to send into production on
> > kernel
> >2.6.18.1. The server has three SCSI disks with "md1" set to a RAID1 with 2
> >mirrors and 1 spare.
>
> I have to ask,
12 matches
Mail list logo
