On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:21:34PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Because you didn't stripe align the partition, your bad.
Align to /what/ stripe? Hardware (CHS is fiction), software (of the RAID
the real stripe (track) size of the storage, you must read the manual
and/or bug technical support
Hi,
I bought two new hard drives to expand my raid array today and
unfortunately one of them appears to be bad. The problem didn't arise
until after I attempted to grow the raid array. I was trying to expand
the array from 6 to 8 drives. I added both drives using mdadm --add
/dev/md1 /dev/sdb1 whic
Doug Ledford wrote:
Anyway, I happen to *like* the idea of using full disk devices, but the
reality is that the md subsystem doesn't have exclusive ownership of the
disks at all times, and without that it really needs to stake a claim on
the space instead of leaving things to chance IMO.
I've
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:41 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Actually, after doing some research, here's what I've found:
I should note that both the lvm code and raid code are simplistic at the
moment. For example, the raid5 mapping only supports the default raid5
layout
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 11:20 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
* When using lilo to boot from a raid device, it automatically installs
itself to the mbr, not to the partition. This can not be changed. Only
0.90 and 1.0 superblock types are supported because lilo doesn't
underst
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The partition table is the single, (mostly) universally recognized
arbiter of what possible data might be on the disk. Having a partition
table may not
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 14:37 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >Most of the time it does. But those times where it can fail, the
> >failure is due to not taking the precautions necessary to prevent it:
> >aka labeling disk usage via some sor
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 15:13 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 08:26:00PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:30 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >>
> >> > In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 08:26:00PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:30 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a device that had
> both but wasn't a raid device. And it's
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:09:03PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 10:00 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:50 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:33PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:40:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
11 matches
Mail list logo
