-Original Message-
From: Darren Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 3:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: bonnie++ for RAID5 performance statistics
I guess this kind of thing would be great to be detailed in the FAQ.
Did you try reading the archives
I tried this patch:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.15-A0
but it won't compile. There was also a hunk that failed to patch.
--
Marc Delisle
Service de l'informatique
Collège de Sherbrooke
Québec. 819/564-6350 poste 223
There's a slightly newer version of the lilo raid1 patches available at
http://www.elliott-turbo.com/lilo/ which takes into account some of the
isues you've mentioned.
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Bene" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Neil Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Hi,
I am planning to set a 200 software raid 1 array here.
I need to buy some ATA 66 controllers , which one do you suggest
? Which one have proven to be stable under 2.2.* linux kernel ?
I was offered Promise, CMD card and Titan( with HPT 386 as far as
I can remember chip on board).
Do you
Title: RE: ATA66 Raid
Most
intelligent Raid 5 implementations perform writes one of two
ways:
If the
code recognizes a series of writes (such as would happen if sequential writing
was occurring), it will cache the writes until it has a full block set, then
calculate the parity block, and
On Wednesday June 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there some secret I need to know to get MD running on 2.4.0-test1?
I'm using the tools from ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha
(Aug '99) but to no avail.
When I try to build a RAID5 with 3 SCSI disk partitions, I get a forced
oops
-Original Message-
From: Darren Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:16 AM
To: Gregory Leblanc
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: bonnie++ for RAID5 performance statistics
Hi Greg,
Yeah I know sorry about the mail line wrap thing I only
noticed
Greetings all.
I have been working of Software RAID in Linux for a while now and have
a growing collection of patches that I would like to make available.
I am hoping to go through Ingo Molnar (the current maintainer) to get
these into the kernel, particularly the larger patches, but he seems
On Thursday June 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil,
1/ grab my patches, read them, and comment/complain
2/ grab my patches and test them
3/ send me other patches for possible inclusion in my set
4/ send me bug reports (cc to linux-raid) and I will investigate
where I
I'm about to install the 2.2.16 kernel to fix the capabilities bug, and found
that the 2.2.15-A0 raid patch fails in 2 places:
patching file `include/linux/sysctl.h'
Hunk #1 FAILED at 429.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to include/linux/sysctl.h.rej
patching file `drivers/block/md.c'
Hi Neil,
1/ grab my patches, read them, and comment/complain
2/ grab my patches and test them
3/ send me other patches for possible inclusion in my set
4/ send me bug reports (cc to linux-raid) and I will investigate
where I can
Just a tiny one: there's a long-standing problem
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Edward Schernau wrote:
Not if it sucked - the point is that it could be done fairly cheaply,
with cheap components.
ehmm.. the point i was trying to make is that the hardware
requirements for RAID5 are so much higher than for a simple
controller that it would be madness to
Might want to wait until people ship ATA-100 controllers,
like the HPT370.
--
Edward Schernau,mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Architect http://www.schernau.com
RC5-64#: 243249 e-gold acct #:131897
Paul Jakma wrote:
[SNIP]
if you think any company would build a card with a general purpose
CPU, (at least $15, if not ~$150 for a StrongARM), FlashRAM, DRAM,
disk controller (IDE or SCSI), I/O bus interface (eg PCI bridge) then
deliberately cripple it so that it could only act as a drive
I just installed 2.2.16 with the 2.2.15-A0 patch.
Use linux-2.2.15
Apply 2.2.15-A0 patch (has two rejects which are harmless for other than
Sparc -- someone else will have to check for that one)
Apply 2.2.16 patch
Michael D. Black Principal Engineer
Hi there,
WARNING: IANAKH (I am not a kernel hacker)
I wanted to upgrade some of my machines to kernel 2.2.16, so I set about
trying to get mingo's patch for 2.2.15 to apply cleanly to 2.2.16.
WARNING #2: I have practically zero experience with diff -c or patch, but
I thought I would attempt
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Bryan Batchelder wrote:
I always thought it was the necessary writes to all disks for a
single write to the array???
but that applies to all RAID levels. 'tis common, so the biggest
bottleneck in RAID5 is CPU.
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP5 key:
Hi Greg,
Yeah I know sorry about the mail line wrap thing I only
noticed after I had sent the email.
4 SCSI disks 40mb/s synchronous SCSI config, 2 Intel P500's and 256mb RAM,
Redhat 6.2, raid0145-19990824-2.2.11, raidtools-19990824-0.90.tar.gz
and kernel 2.2.13 SMP.
[root@bod
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Maria Blackmore wrote:
In a nutshell, it simply doesn't work, there isn't much more I can say
than that, because that is just it.
In a nutshell, get the patches (http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-patches/),
compile the kernel and off you go.
needless to say, niether the
In article cs.lists.linux-raid/01e701bfd168$45bd2190$[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I just installed 2.2.16 with the 2.2.15-A0 patch.
Use linux-2.2.15
Apply 2.2.15-A0 patch (has two rejects which are harmless for other than
Sparc -- someone else will have to check for that one)
They're
Hi Ion,
Use linux-2.2.15
Apply 2.2.15-A0 patch (has two rejects which are harmless for other than
Sparc -- someone else will have to check for that one)
They're actually harmless even for sparc -- they failed because
they were already applied.
The other failed patch, in md.c, is
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Martin Bene wrote:
The other failed patch, in md.c, is irrelevant for raid 0.90.
Please be careful: If you try to apply raid-2.2.15-A0 to a clean 2.2.16
kernel, the patch to md.c will fail
I know, but I did it the other way around -- first the raid patch, then
the
Will there be a clean 2.2.16 patch so everyone can download
2.2.16 straight off [the security fixed kernel] and the just
install that patch with the relevant matching RAIDTools.
Would make life much easier ;-)
Darren
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I've been running 2.2.16 with the 2.2.15-A0 patch for about 18 hours now on
two boxes (one RAID1, one large RAID5).
It's working fine (the md.c rejects don't matter -- that was for old version
of md.c).
Michael D. Black Principal Engineer
[EMAIL
Hi Ion,
I know, but I did it the other way around -- first the raid patch, then
the 2.2.16 patch. This way, the failing patch is the one in 2.2.16, which
is irrelevant.
[read the message I was replying to, please]
Sorry, I missed this - you were perfectly right.
For a patch that aplies
Hi there,
I've used the patch publied here by Corin. It seem's to work well, all basic
RAID functions are OK (reconstruct, ...).
Working on 2 IDE drives.
The method is very simple (patch the Ingo's patch), and then patch Kernel.
It work on a fresh 2.2.16 kernel.
HTH
--Alexandre
HighPoint has a new chip, the HPT370, which will probably make it
to an ABit motherboard near you fairly soon. It's an ATA100 IDE
controller that, according to the web fluff -
(quote)
With the inclusion of Hot Swap capabilities, user will have the ability
to remove IDE/ATAPI devices from the
Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Juri Haberland wrote:
Luca Berra wrote:
get the latest lilo from metalab, it understands raid
But it does not really work.
If I do a lilo with boot=/dev/md0 in my lilo.conf it does write to both
disks. But booting from the
/etc/raidtab:
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 5
nr-raid-disks 3
persistent-superblock 1
parity-algorithmleft-symmetric
chunk-size 32
device /dev/sdb1
raid-disk 0
get the latest lilo from metalab, it understands raid
But it does not really work.
If I do a lilo with boot=/dev/md0 in my lilo.conf it does write to both
disks. But booting from the second disk in the array is not possible.
I always get "error: 0x80" or similar right after the LILO
BTW- The 'lilo' and kernel with comes with the VA-Linux distro for
their hardware (based on RH6.2) seems to have the current patches and
worked flawlessly for me. Maybe you can grab the SRPM's for those?
Phil
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Michael wrote:
get the latest lilo
[Gregory Leblanc]
[root@bod tiobench-0.3.1]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
No size specified, using 200 MB
Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
Try making the size at least double that of ram.
Actually, I do exactly that, clamping at 200MB and 2000MB currently.
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:51:43AM -0400, Mike Black wrote:
I've been running 2.2.16 with the 2.2.15-A0 patch for about 18 hours now on
two boxes (one RAID1, one large RAID5).
It's working fine (the md.c rejects don't matter -- that was for old version
of md.c).
Well, I tried the "2.2.15,
-Original Message-
From: James Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:46 PM
To: Gregory Leblanc
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: bonnie++ for RAID5 performance statistics
[Gregory Leblanc]
[root@bod tiobench-0.3.1]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
[Gregory Leblanc]
Sounds good, James, but Darren said that his machine had 256MB of ram. I
wouldn't have mentioned it, except that it wasn't using enough, I think.
it tries to stat /proc/kcore currently. no procfs and it'll fail to
get a good number... I've thought about other approaches,
Has anyone tried building the DAC960 driver as a module with the 2.2.16
kernel? I've tried with 2.2.16 stock, and 2.2.16 + DAC960-2.2.6. Either
way, when the initrd loads and tries to insmod DAC960.o, I get:
unresolved symbol waitqueue_lock
stock 2.2.14 and 2.2.15 build with DAC960 as a
36 matches
Mail list logo
