Richard Scobie wrote:
This looks like a potentially good, cheap candidate for md use.
Although Linux support is not explicitly mentioned, SiI 3124 is used.
http://www.addonics.com/products/host_controller/ADSA3GPX8-4e.asp
Thanks Richard. FWIW I find this kind of info useful.
David
-
To
Dan Williams wrote:
On 8/26/07, Abe Skolnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because you can rely on the configuration file to be certain about
which disks to pull in and which to ignore. Without the config file
the auto-detect routine may not always do the right thing because it
will need to make
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:39 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I don't agree completely. I think the superblock location is a key
issue, because if you have a superblock location which moves depending
the filesystem or LVM you use to look at the partition (or full disk)
then
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
As for where the metadata should be placed, it is interesting to
observe that the SNIA's DDFv1.2 puts it at the end of the device.
And as DDF is an industry standard sponsored by multiple companies it
must be ..
Sorry. I had intended to say correct,
Janek Kozicki wrote:
Hello,
I just created a new array /dev/md1 like this:
mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md1 --chunk=64 --level=raid5 \
--metadata=1.1 --bitmap=internal \
--raid-devices=3 /dev/hdc2 /dev/sda2 missing
But later I changed my mind, and I wanted to use chunk 128.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
I certainly accept that the documentation is probably less that
perfect (by a large margin). I am more than happy to accept patches
or concrete suggestions on how to improve that. I always think it is
best if a non-developer writes documentation (and a
Alberto Alonso wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:16 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Not in the older kernel versions you were running, no.
These old versions (specially the RHEL) are supposed to be
the official versions supported by Redhat and the hardware
vendors, as they were very specific as
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
The next time you come across something like that, do a SysRq-T dump and
post that. It shows a stack trace of all processes - and in particular,
where exactly each task is stuck.
Yes I got it before
Paul VanGundy wrote:
All,
Hello. I don't know if this is the right place to post this issue but it
does deal with RAID so I thought I would try.
It deals primarily with linux *software* raid.
But stick with it - you may end up doing that...
What hardware/distro etc are you using?
Is this an
Paul VanGundy wrote:
Thanks for the prompt replay David. Below are the answers to your questions:
What hardware/distro etc are you using?
Is this an expensive (hundreds of £) card? Or an onboard/motherboard chipset?
The distro is Suse 10.1.
As a bit of trivia, Neil (who wrote and maintains
Chris Eddington wrote:
Hi,
Hi
While on vacation I had one SATA port/cable fail, and then four hours
later a second one fail. After fixing/moving the SATA ports, I can
reboot and all drives seem to be OK now, but when assembled it won't
recognize the filesystem.
That's unusual - if the
Ok - it looks like the raid array is up. There will have been an event count
mismatch which is why you needed --force. This may well have caused some
(hopefully minor) corruption.
FWIW, xfs_check is almost never worth running :) (It runs out of memory easily).
xfs_repair -n is much better.
What
Chris Eddington wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the pointer on xfs_repair -n , it actually tells me something
(some listed below) but I'm not sure what it means but there seems to be
a lot of data loss. One complication is I see an error message in ata6,
so I moved the disks around thinking it was a
Chris Eddington wrote:
Yes, there is some kind of media error message in dmesg, below. It is
not random, it happens at exactly the same moments in each xfs_repair -n
run.
Nov 11 09:48:25 altair kernel: [37043.300691] res
51/40:00:01:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e1 Emask 0x9 (media error)
Neil Cavan wrote:
Hello,
Hi Neil
What kernel version?
What mdadm version?
This morning, I woke up to find the array had kicked two disks. This
time, though, /proc/mdstat showed one of the failed disks (U_U_U, one
of the _s) had been marked as a spare - weird, since there are no
spare drives
Neil Cavan wrote:
Thanks for taking a look, David.
No problem.
Kernel:
2.6.15-27-k7, stock for Ubuntu 6.06 LTS
mdadm:
mdadm - v1.12.0 - 14 June 2005
OK - fairly old then. Not really worth trying to figure out why hdc got re-added
when things had gone wrong.
You're right, earlier in
Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday November 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Do you know of any way to recover from this mistake? Or at least what
filesystem it was formated with.
It may not have been lost - yet.
If you created the same array with the same devices and layout etc,
the data will
Dragos wrote:
Thank you for your very fast answers.
First I tried 'fsck -n' on the existing array. The answer was that If I
wanted to check a XFS partition I should use 'xfs_check'. That seems to
say that my array was partitioned with xfs, not reiserfs. Am I correct?
Then I tried the
Guy Watkins wrote:
man md
man mdadm
and
http://linux-raid.osdl.org/index.php/Main_Page
:)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Michael Makuch wrote:
So my questions are:
...
- Is this a.o.k for a raid5 array?
So I realised that /proc/mdstat isn't documented too well anywhere...
http://linux-raid.osdl.org/index.php/Mdstat
Comments welcome...
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid
Mitchell Laks wrote:
I think my error was that maybe I did not
do write the fdisk changes to the drive with
fdisk w
No - your problem was that you needed to use the literal word missing
like you did this time:
mdadm -C /dev/md0 --level=2 -n2 /dev/sda1 missing
[however, this time you also
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Michael Harris schrieb:
i have a disk fail say HDC for example, i wont know which disk HDC is
as it could be any of the 5 disks in the PC. Is there anyway to make
it easier to identify which disk is which?.
If the drives have any LEDs, the most reliable way would
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options (google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the location
and data structure. Would it be good to introduce the new
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the
location
and data
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
I guess I will sit down tonight and craft some patches to the existing
md* man pages. Some things are indeed left unsaid.
If you want to be more verbose than a man page allows then there's always the
wiki/FAQ...
http://linux-raid.osdl.org/
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
Is
On 26 Oct 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday October 25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also suspect that a *lot* of people will assume that the highest superblock
version is the best and should be used for new installs etc.
Grumble... why can't people expect what I want them to expect?
Moshe
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
Hmm, I read the Linux raid faq on
http://www.faqs.org/contrib/linux-raid/x37.html
It looks pretty outdated, referring to how to patch 2.2 kernels and
not mentioning new mdadm, nor raid10. It was not dated.
It seemed to be related to the linux-raid list, telling
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
over the other. For example, I've now learned that if I want to set up
a RAID1 /boot, it must actually be 1.2 or grub won't be able to read
it. (I would therefore argue that if the new version ever becomes
default, then the default sub-version
Bill Davidsen wrote:
David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
This makes 1.0 the default sb type for new arrays.
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time
to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks to emphasise the
location
Richard Scobie wrote:
David Rees wrote:
FWIW, this step is clearly marked in the Software-RAID HOWTO under
Booting on RAID:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-7.html#ss7.3
The one place I didn't look...
Good - I hope you'll both look here instead:
Marcin Krol wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have had a problem with RAID array (udev messed up disk names, I've had
RAID on
disks only, without raid partitions)
Do you mean that you originally used /dev/sdb for the RAID array? And now you
are using /dev/sdb1?
Given the system seems confused I
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
I am trying to get some order to linux raid info.
Help appreciated :)
The list description at
http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-raid
does list af FAQ, http://www.linuxdoc.org/FAQ/
Yes, that should be amended. Drop them a line about the FAQ too
So our FAQ
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 29 2008 18:08, Bill Davidsen wrote:
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks
to emphasise the location and data structure. Would it be good to
introduce the new names at
Dexter Filmore wrote:
On Friday 08 February 2008 00:22:36 Neil Brown wrote:
On Thursday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 03:02:00 Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday February 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems the other topic wasn't quite clear...
not necessarily.
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 10 2008 10:34, David Greaves wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 29 2008 18:08, Bill Davidsen wrote:
IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options
(google Time to deprecate old RAID formats?) and the superblocks
to emphasise the location
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
I would then like that to be reflected in the main page.
I would rather that this be called Howto and FAQ - Linux raid
than Main Page - Linux Raid. Is that possible?
Just like C has a main() wiki's have a Main Page :)
I guess it could be changed but I think it
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Feel free to argue that the manpage is clear on this - but as we know, not
everyone reads the manpages in depth...
That is indeed suboptimal (but I would not care since I know the
implications of an SB at the front)
Neil cares even less and probably doesn't even need
Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
I'm planning to take some RAID-1 drives out of an old machine
and plop them into a new machine. Hoping that mdadm assemble
will magically work. There's no reason it shouldn't work. Right?
old [ mdadm v1.9.0 / kernel 2.6.17 / Debian Etch / x86-64 ]
new [ mdad v2.6.2
Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
It's not a RAID issue, but make sure you don't have any duplicate volume
names. According to Murphy's Law, if there are two / volumes, the wrong
one will be chosen upon your next reboot.
Thanks for the tip. Since I'm not using volumes or LVM at all, I should be
safe
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
