On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:31:14PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
BTW: if this can be done in a user program, mdadm, rather than by code in
the kernel, that might well make everyone happy. Okay, realistically less
I start to like the idea. Of course you can't repair a running array
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:08:07AM -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote:
* Internal serverworks PATA controller on a netengine server. The
server if off waiting to get picked up, so I can't get the important
1 PATA failure.
I was surprised on this one, I did have good luck
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:41:39AM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
consider a storage with 64 spt, an io size of 4k and partition starting
at sector 63.
first io request will require two ios from the storage (1 for sector 63,
and one for sectors 64 to 70)
the next 7 io
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 09:50:55AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
Because you didn't stripe align the partition, your bad.
by default fdisk misalignes partition tables
and aligning them is more complex than just doing without.
Why use fdisk then? Use parted instead. It's not the kernel's fault
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:15:13AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
on a pc maybe, but that is 20 years old design.
partition table design is limited because it is still based on C/H/S,
which do not exist anymore.
The MS-DOS format is not the only possible partition table layout. Other
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:54:18AM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
but the fix is easy.
remove the partition detection code from the kernel and start working on
a smart userspace replacement for device detection. we already have
vol_id from udev and blkid from ext3 which support detection of many
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 06:22:27PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
You got the ordering wrong. You should get userspace support ready and
accepted _first_, and then you can start the
flamew^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion to make the in-kernel partitioning code
Oh wait that is possible even
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford 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
understand the offset
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 matching partner still existed
too. What you are talking about would have misrecognized this
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 06:23:25AM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I recently got a chance to test SW RAID5 using 750GB disks (10) in a RAID5
on a 3ware card, model no: 9550SXU-12
The bottom line is the controller is doing some weird caching with writes
on SW RAID5 which makes it not worth
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:51:16PM +0100, Robin Hill wrote:
Just to pick up on this one (as I'm about to reformat my array as XFS) -
does this actually work with a hardware controller? Is there any
assurance that the XFS stripes align with the hardware RAID stripes? Or
could you just end up
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 09:29:04AM +1000, lewis shobbrook wrote:
I've noted that device allocation can change with the generation of
new initrd's and installation of new kernels; i.e. /dev/sdc becomes
/dev/sda depending upon what order the modules load etc.
I'm wondering if one could send a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:32:32PM -0500, Mike Accetta wrote:
Yes, we actually have a separate (smallish) boot partition at the front of
the array. This does reduce the at-risk window substantially. I'll have to
ponder whether it reduces it close enough to negligible to then ignore, but
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:04:40AM -0500, Mike Accetta wrote:
Thoughts or other suggestions anyone?
This is a case where a very small /boot partition is still a very good
idea... 50-100MB is a good choice (some initramfs generators require
quite a bit of space under /boot while generating the
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:40:32AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
AFAIK mdadm/kernel raid can handle this, I had a number of occaisons when
my UPS shut my machine down when I was rebuilding a RAID5 array, when the
box came back up, the rebuild picked up where it left off.
_If_ the resync got
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 10:51:25AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I also suspect that write are not being combined, since writing the 2GB
test runs at one-drive speed writing 1MB blocks, but floppy speed
writing 2k blocks. And no, I'm not running out of CPU to do the
overhead, it jumps from
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:55:57PM +0100, Mogens Kjaer wrote:
If one of your disks fails, and you have pages in the swapfile
on the failing disk, your machine will crash when the pages are
IMHO the machine will not crash just the application which the page
belongs to will be
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 03:30:55PM +0100, Dexter Filmore wrote:
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 3344107
For some models that's perfectly normal.
Looking at a 5 year old 40GB Maxtor that's not been cooled too well I see 3
as the raw value.
Different technology, different vendor, different
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 02:39:31PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
mdadm could probably be changed to be able to remove the device
anyway. The only difficulty is: how do you tell it which device to
remove, given that there is no name in /dev to use.
Major:minor? If /sys/block still
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:58:03AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
udev can find out what needs to be done by looking at
Are you sure?
$ cat /proc/mdstat
md0 : active raid1 sdd1 sdc1 sdb1 sda1
393472 blocks [4/4] 
$ ls -l
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:07:07AM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
Vanilla 2.6.18 kernel. In fact, all the /sys/block/*/holders directories
are empty here.
Never mind, I just found the per-partition holders directories. Argh.
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:32:00PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
You don't really need to. After a clean install, the operating system
has no business reading any block it didn't write to during the install
unless you are just reading disk blocks for the fun of it.
What happens if you have a
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:47:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Not at all true. Every filesystem, no matter where it stores its
metadata blocks, still writes to every single metadata block it
allocates to initialize that metadata block. The same is true for
directory blocks...they are
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:28:07AM +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
1) if the network disk device has decided to shut down wholesale
(temporarily) because of lack of contact over the net, then
retries and writes are _bound_ to fail for a while, so there
is no point in sending them now.
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:12:14PM +0200, Dexter Filmore wrote:
How can I tell if the discs on the new controller will become sd[e-h] or if
they'll be the new a-d and push the existing ones back?
If they are the same type (or more precisely, if they use the same
driver), then their order on
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
Do you know if it is possible to switch the scheduler at runtime?
echo cfq /sys/block/disk/queue/scheduler
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:00:13AM -0700, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
At least one can do a ls of the /sys/block area then do an
echo cfq down the tree . Does anyone know of a method to set a
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:46:09AM -0500, Bill Cizek wrote:
I was able to work around this by lowering
/proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_max to a value
below my disk thruput value (~ 50 MB/s) as follows:
IMHO a much better fix is to use the cfq I/O scheduler during the
rebuild. The default
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:30:32AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
It is arguable that for a read error on a degraded raid5, that may not
be the best thing to do, but I'm not completely convinced.
My opinion would be that in the degraded case md should behave as if it
was a single physical drive, and
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:16:10PM -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:
is this possible?
* stop RAID5
* set a mirror between current disk X and a new added disk Y, and X as
primary one (which means copy X to Y to full sync, and before this ends,
only read from X); also this mirror will not have any
Mail list logo