On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:22:00PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
While my RAID6 array was rebuilding after one disk had failed (which
I replaced), a second disk failed[*], and this caused the rebuild
process to start over from the beginning.
Why would the rebuild need to start over from the
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done, some
balance between the read time, seek time, and read size could be done.
Using more than one drive only makes sense when the read transfer time is
significantly
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:03:08AM +0100, Gordon Henderson wrote:
While my RAID6 array was rebuilding after one disk had failed (which
I replaced), a second disk failed[*], and this caused the rebuild
process to start over from the beginning.
Why would the rebuild need to start over
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
[*] probably an entirely defective batch of 14 Samsung Spinpoint
500G disks
Lets hope not... Keep checking those SMART values...
Failed disk #2 still reports a SMART status of PASSED..
Hmmm.. I'd be tempted to double check your hardware +
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:15:38AM +0100, Gordon Henderson wrote:
[*] probably an entirely defective batch of 14 Samsung Spinpoint
500G disks
Lets hope not... Keep checking those SMART values...
Failed disk #2 still reports a SMART status of PASSED..
Hmmm.. I'd be tempted to double
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done, some
balance between the read time, seek time, and read size could be done.
Using more than one drive only makes sense when
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
(please CC on replies, not subscribed to linux-raid@)
Hi!
While my RAID6 array was rebuilding after one disk had failed (which
I replaced), a second disk failed[*], and this caused the rebuild
process to start over from the beginning.
Why would
Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done, some
balance between the read time, seek time, and read size could be done.
Using more than one drive only makes sense when the read transfer
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:22:00PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
While my RAID6 array was rebuilding after one disk had failed (which
I replaced), a second disk failed[*], and this caused the rebuild
process to start over from the beginning.
Why would the rebuild need
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:11:35AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done, some
balance between the read time, seek time, and read
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:11:35AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be done, some
balance between
Hi,
On 3/04/2007 3:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm4/
- The oops in git-net.patch has been fixed, so that tree has been restored.
It is huge.
- Added the device-mapper development tree to the -mm lineup
On 4/5/07, Lennert Buytenhek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:54:14AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I confess, I would feel safer with my data if the rebuild started
over, I would like to be sure that when it (finally) finishes the
data are valid.
With disk #3 about to die,
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Had a quick question, this is the first time I have seen this happen, and it
was not even under during heavy I/O, hardly anything was going on with the
box at the time.
.. snip ..
# /usr/bin/time badblocks -b 512 -s -v -w /dev/sdl
Checking for bad
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:11:35AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:11:50PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You are correct, but I think if an optimization were to be
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:33:03 +1000
Reuben Farrelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 3/04/2007 3:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm4/
- The oops in git-net.patch has been fixed, so that tree has been
My .config is attached.. I cannot reproduce this problem, it only happened
once, but I want to find out how to make sure it does not happen again.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On 4/5/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:33:03 +1000
Reuben Farrelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 3/04/2007 3:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc5/2.6.21-rc5-mm4/
- The oops in
18 matches
Mail list logo
