On 8/7/07, saeed bishara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for a method for doing RAID migration while keeping the
data available.
the migrations I'm interested with are:
1. Single drive -RAID1/RAID5
2. RAID1 - RAID5.
1. is a bit complicated, as a raid device on a disk is slightly
On 9/24/06, chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I assume the disk is ok, just needs to be
re-added to the array?
Not necessarily. You should look for logs indicating _why_ it is
marked bad. If you don't know how long it's been broken, you need some
monitoring system, like mdadm or logcheck.
On 9/15/06, Reza Naima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've picked up two 500G disks, and am in the process of dd'ing the
contents of the raid partitions over. The 2nd failed disk came up just
fine, and has been coping the data over without fault. I expect it to
finish, but thought I would send this
On 9/17/06, Ask Bjørn Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's recommended to use a script to scrub the raid device regularly,
to detect sleeping bad blocks early.
What's the best way to do that? dd the full md device to /dev/null?
echo check /sys/block/md?/md/sync_action
Distros may have
On 9/17/06, Dexter Filmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's recommended to use a script to scrub the raid device regularly,
to detect sleeping bad blocks early.
What's the best way to do that? dd the full md device to /dev/null?
echo check /sys/block/md?/md/sync_action
Distros may
mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/hda1 /dev/hdb1 # i think, man mdadm
Not what I meant: there already exists an array on a file server that was
created from the server os, I want to boot that server from knoppix instead
and access the array.
exactly what --assemble does. looks at disks, finds
On 9/14/06, Dexter Filmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about you read the rest of the thread, wisecracker?
sorry. mailreader-excuse/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 9/10/06, Bodo Thiesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we need a way, to feedback the redundancy from the raid5 to the raid1.
snip long explanation
Sounds awfully complicated to me. Perhaps this is how it internally
works, but my 2 cents go to the option to gracefully remove a device
(migrating
On 9/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what I want to do is:
* Mark the synced spare drive as working and in position 1
* Assemble the array without the unsynced spare and check if this
provides consistent data
* If it didnt, I want to mark the synced spare as working
On 9/9/06, Richard Scobie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I have a RAID 10, comprising a RAID 0, /dev/md3 made up of RAID1,
/dev/md1 and RAID1, /dev/md2 and I do an:
echo repair /sys/block/md3/md/sync_action
will this run simultaneous repairs on the the underlying RAID 1's, or
should seperate
This way I could get the replacement in and do the resync without
actually having to degrade the array first.
snip
2) This sort of brings up a subject I'm getting increasingly paranoid
about. It seems to me that if disk 1 develops a unrecoverable error at
block 500 and disk 4 develops one at
Possibly safer to recreate with two missing if you aren't sure of the
order. That way you can look in the array to see if it looks right,
or if you have to try a different order.
I'd say it's safer to recreate with all disks, in order to get the
resync. Otherwise you risk the all so famous
On 9/3/06, Tuomas Leikola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly safer to recreate with two missing if you aren't sure of the
order. That way you can look in the array to see if it looks right,
or if you have to try a different order.
I'd say it's safer to recreate with all disks, in order
On 8/9/06, James Peverill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try the force assemble but it sounds like I'm screwed. It sounds
like what happened was that two of my drives developed bad sectors in
different places that weren't found until I accessed certain areas (in
the case of the first failure)
On 7/19/06, Sevrin Robstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried file -s /dev/md0 also, and with one of the disk as first disk I
got ext 3 filedata (needs journal recovery) (errors) .
Congratulations, you have found your first disk. Does fsck still
complain about the magic number?
-
To unsubscribe
No. When one of the 2 drives in your RAID5 dies, and all you have for
some blocks is parity info, how will the missing data be reconstructed?
You could [I suspect] create a 2 disk RAID5 in degraded mode (3rd member
missing), but it'll obviously lack redundancy until you add a 3rd disk,
On 4/8/06, Mike Garey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one last question though.. When I update /boot/grub/menu.lst
while booted from /dev/md0 with both disks available, does this file
get written to the MBR on both disks, or do I have to do this
manually?
Grub's configuration lives on both
I'm looking for a way to create a real-time mirror of a NAS. In other words,
say I have a 5.5 TB NAS (3ware 16-drive array, RAID-5, 500 GB drives). I
want
to mirror it in real time to a completely separate 5.5 TB NAS. RSYNCing in
the background is not an option. The two NAS boxes need
On 4/5/06, Mike Garey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried booting from /dev/hdc1 (as /dev/md0 in grub) using a 2.6.15
kernel with md and raid1 support built in and this is what I now get:
md: autodetecting raid arrays
md: autorun ...
md: considering hdc1 ...
md: adding hdc1 ...
md: created
On 3/27/06, andy liebman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Case 1: When we stripe together TWO RAW 3ware RAID-5 devices (i.e.,
/dev/sdc + /dev/sdd = /dev/md2), df -h tells us that the device is 11
TB in size. df -k tells us that the device is 10741827072 blocks in
size and cat /proc/partitions tells us
On 2/20/06, Bryan Wann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mdadm --assume-clean
What version of mdadm was that from? From mdadm(8) in
mdadm-1.11.0-4.fc4 on my systems:
cut
I tried with --assume-clean, it still wanted to sync.
The man page i quoted was from 2.3.1 (6 feb) - relatively new.
I tested
On 1/19/06, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The read balancing in raid1 is clunky at best. I've often thought
there must be a better way. I've never thought what the better way
might be (though I haven't tried very hard).
If anyone would like to experiment with the read-balancing code,
22 matches
Mail list logo
