On 12/19/07, Jon Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > This just happened to me.
> > > Create raid with:
> > >
> > > mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=raid10 --raid-devices=3
> > > --spare-devi
On 12/19/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This just happened to me.
> > Create raid with:
> >
> > mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=raid10 --raid-devices=3
> > --spare-devices=0 --layout=o2 /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdc3 /dev/sdd3
> >
> > cat /proc
On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This just happened to me.
> Create raid with:
>
> mdadm --create /dev/md2 --level=raid10 --raid-devices=3
> --spare-devices=0 --layout=o2 /dev/sdb3 /dev/sdc3 /dev/sdd3
>
> cat /proc/mdstat
>
> md2 : active raid10 sdd3[2] sdc3[1] sdb3[0]
>
On 12/19/07, Michal Soltys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >
> > Or is there a better way to do this, does parted handle this situation
> > better?
> >
> > What is the best (and correct) way to calculate stripe-alignment on the
> > RAID5 device itself?
> >
> >
> > Does this also
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Or is there a better way to do this, does parted handle this situation
better?
What is the best (and correct) way to calculate stripe-alignment on the
RAID5 device itself?
Does this also apply to Linux/SW RAID5? Or are there any caveats that
are not taken into accou
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Robin Hill wrote:
On Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:50:16AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
The (up to) 30% percent figure is mentioned here:
http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/raidoptimization.html
That looks to be referring to partitioning a RAID device - this'll only
apply to har
On Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:50:16AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> The (up to) 30% percent figure is mentioned here:
> http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/raidoptimization.html
>
That looks to be referring to partitioning a RAID device - this'll only
apply to hardware RAID or partitionable software RAID
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:18:21PM -0500, Jon Sabo wrote:
> So I was trying to copy over some Indiana Jones wav files and it
> wasn't going my way. I noticed that my software raid device showed:
>
> /dev/md1 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
>
> Is this saying that it was remounted, read onl
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm going to try another approach, I'll describe it when I get results (or
not).
http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/align_vs_noalign/
Hardly any difference at whatsoever, only on the per char for read/write
is it any faster..?
Average of 3 runs tak
- Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
- Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Nagilum said: (by the date of Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:09:38 +0100)
>> Ok, I've recreated the problem in form of a semiautomatic testcase.
>> All necessary files (plus the old xfs_repair output) are at
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
--
Now to my setup / question:
# fdisk -l /dev/sdc
Disk /dev
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jon Sabo wrote:
I found the problem. The power was unplugged from the drive. The
sata power connectors aren't very good at securing the connector. I
reattached the power connector to the sata drive and booted up. This
is what it looks like now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/hom
I think I got it now. Thanks for your help!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/illsci# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90.03
Creation Time : Mon Jul 30 21:47:14 2007
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 1951744 (1906.32 MiB 1998.59 MB)
Device Size : 1951744 (1906.32 MiB 199
We'll here's the rest of the info I should have sent in the last email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/illsci# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [multipath] [raid1]
md1 : active raid1 sdb2[1]
974808064 blocks [2/1] [_U]
md0 : active raid1 sda1[0]
1951744 blocks [2/1] [U_]
unused devices:
[E
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
--
Now to my setup / question:
# fdisk -l /dev/sdc
Disk /dev/sdc: 150.0 GB, 150039945216 bytes
255 heads,
Jon Sabo wrote:
So I was trying to copy over some Indiana Jones wav files and it
wasn't going my way. I noticed that my software raid device showed:
/dev/md1 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
Is this saying that it was remounted, read only because it found a
problem with the md1 meta devic
I found the problem. The power was unplugged from the drive. The
sata power connectors aren't very good at securing the connector. I
reattached the power connector to the sata drive and booted up. This
is what it looks like now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/illsci# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jon Sabo wrote:
So I was trying to copy over some Indiana Jones wav files and it
wasn't going my way. I noticed that my software raid device showed:
/dev/md1 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
Is this saying that it was remounted, read only because it found a
problem
So I was trying to copy over some Indiana Jones wav files and it
wasn't going my way. I noticed that my software raid device showed:
/dev/md1 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
Is this saying that it was remounted, read only because it found a
problem with the md1 meta device? That's what it
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
--
Now to my setup / question:
# fdisk -l /dev/sdc
Disk /dev/sdc: 150.0 GB, 150039945216 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1824
On 12/19/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As other posts have detailed, putting the partition on a 64k aligned
> boundary can address the performance problems. However, a poor choice of
> chunk size, cache_buffer size, or just random i/o in small sizes can eat
> up a lot of the benefi
On 12/19/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As other posts have detailed, putting the partition on a 64k aligned
> boundary can address the performance problems. However, a poor choice of
> chunk size, cache_buffer size, or just random i/o in small sizes can eat
> up a lot of the benefi
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
--
Now to my setup / question:
# fdisk -l /dev/sdc
Disk /dev/sdc: 150.0 GB, 150039945216 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 18241 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 =
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jon Nelson wrote:
On 12/19/07, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
From that setup it seems simple, scrap the partition table and use the
disk device for raid. This is what we do for all data storage disks (hw raid)
Thierry Iceta wrote:
Hi
I would like to use raidtools-1.00.3 on Rhel5 distribution
but I got thie error
Could you tell me if a new version is available or if a patch exists
to use raidtools on Rhel5
raidtools is old and unmaintained. Use mdadm.
--
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Woe unto
Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard dr
On 12/19/07, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
> >> From that setup it seems simple, scrap the partition table and use the
> > disk device for raid. This is what we do for all data storage disks (hw
> > raid)
> > and sw raid members.
> >
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
--
Now to my setup / question:
# fdisk -l /dev/sdc
Disk /dev/sdc: 150.0 GB, 150039945216 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 18241 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk id
Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
# dd if=largetestfile of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Thiemo Nagel wrote:
Performance of the raw device is fair:
# dd if=/dev/md2 of=/dev/zero bs=128k count=64k
8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 15.6071 seconds, 550 MB/s
Somewhat less through ext3 (created with -E stride=64):
# dd if=largetestfile of=/d
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
--
Now to my setup / question:
# fdisk -l /dev/sdc
Disk /dev/sdc: 150.0 GB, 150039945216 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 18241 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x5667c24a
Device Boot Start
The (up to) 30% percent figure is mentioned here:
http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/raidoptimization.html
On http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=25786:
This user writes about the problem:
XP, and virtually every O/S and partitioning software of XP's day, by default
places the firs
Guy Watkins wrote:
} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-raid-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brendan Conoboy
} Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:36 PM
} To: Norman Elton
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: Re: Raid over 48 disks
}
} Norman Elton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:59:41PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday December 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm thinking of slowly replacing disks in my raid5 array with bigger
> > disks and then resize the array to fill up the new disks. Is this
> > possible? Basically I woul
Thierry Iceta wrote:
> Hi
>
> I would like to use raidtools-1.00.3 on Rhel5 distribution
> but I got thie error
Use mdadm instead. Raidtools is dangerous/unsafe, and is
not maintained for a long time already.
/mjt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the bo
On Wednesday December 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking of slowly replacing disks in my raid5 array with bigger
> disks and then resize the array to fill up the new disks. Is this
> possible? Basically I would like to go from:
>
> 3 x 500gig RAID5 to 3 x 1tb RAID5, thereby going
Hi
I would like to use raidtools-1.00.3 on Rhel5 distribution
but I got thie error
Could you tell me if a new version is available or if a patch exists
to use raidtools on Rhel5
Thanks for your answer
Thierry
gcc -O2 -Wall -DMD_VERSION=\""raidtools-1.00.3"\" -c -o rrc_common.o
rrc_common.c
ra
Hi,
I'm thinking of slowly replacing disks in my raid5 array with bigger
disks and then resize the array to fill up the new disks. Is this
possible? Basically I would like to go from:
3 x 500gig RAID5 to 3 x 1tb RAID5, thereby going from 1tb to 2tb of
storage.
It seems like it should be, but...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're investigating the possibility of running Linux (RHEL) on top of
Sun's X4500 Thumper box:
http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/
Basically, it's a server with 48 SATA hard drives. No hardware RAID.
It'
39 matches
Mail list logo
