On Wed, 31 May 2000, Corin Hartland-Swann wrote:
I am trying to set up RAID1 + RAID0 over four disks. I have
md1 = sda2 sdb2 (RAID 1)
md2 = sdc2 sdd2 (RAID 1)
md3 = md1 md2(RAID 0)
I can successfully mkraid these devices, but when I try to mke2fs I get
the message "Got md
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Brian Murphy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Does anyone here have experience with ReiserFS or ext3 under software
RAID?
[...]
Software raid and ReiserFS are incompatible as far as I know - something to
do with the way they are implimented which conflicts - and
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, [ISO-8859-2] "Marian Porwo³" wrote:
Are there known effects of running SW RAID along with VMWare?
I have run it using virtual disks on RAID 0 and RAID 1 devices, and raw IDE
disks with no problem...
-Andy
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there somewhere i can go to read through the archives of this list?
I use:
http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/
-Andy
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, James Manning wrote:
It's bound to get brought up here, so we might as well do it now.
The release certainly seems to indicate a feeling that the current s/w
raid is lacking (I think most if not all of us would dsagree at least
to a large extent)
Not at all.
Despite
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, domdev wrote:
md: md0: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction
raid1: raid set md0 not clean; reconstructing mirrors
md2 [events: 0001](write) md2's sb offset: 208576
Got md request, not good...
===
This is
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, remo strotkamp wrote:
did anybody get the above mentioned errors and crashes even with short enough
cables and no HD-cases?
For a short period of time (1 day) I ran one UDMA66 disks (20GB Seagate
Barracuda with an IWILL HPT366 controller) with the cable supplied with
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
are there any complete systems
resellers (like Dell for ex.) that integrate Linux-compatible RAID
controllers in their offerings?
Most of the larger linux hardware vendors seem to offer pre-packaged RAID
hardware along with their systems.
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
If you cut the cable
lengthwise (no, don't cut the wires) between wires (don't break the
insulation on the wires themselves, just the connecting plastic) you can
get your cables to be 1/4 the normal width (up until you get to the
connector).
I
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Thomas Waldmann wrote:
[...]
RAID5, WRITE: you will have better write performance than with single disk. The
more disks you use, the better performance you will have. But: you will
have quite some CPU load, so a fast CPU is good for performance (and if your
apps also do a
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, [ISO-8859-2] Wojciech Ku¶ wrote:
raiddev /dev/md8
raid-level 1
nr-raid-disks 2
nr-spare-disks 0
chunk-size 4
Do you really want 4-byte chunks? Maybe you meant to use "4k" instead?
According to the man page,
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
It's no problem (any longer) making
both root and swap reside on RAID.
Swapping on a software RAID'd partition will _break_ if the array ever needs
to resync. It's something revealed fairly recently, and has something to do
with using the buffer
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 02:53:22PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Sorry, but since then we did find a fault. Raid resync goes through the
buffer cache. Swap bypasses the buffer cache. There is no coherency
between the two activities. It is possible for raid1 and raid5
background resync
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
Here is my results for Raid-1 read performance weirdness:
Raid 1: Chunk size 4k: /dev/md1:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Chris Keladis wrote:
I have some DPT RAID controllers (PM1554U2's) i will like to configure a RAID
set for.
I have Mike Neuffer's patches to the 2.2.12 kernel applied, and it see's the
array and everything works okay.
However i dont have any notification of failures
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Lauri Tischler wrote:
Maybe optimum solution is to use cheap hardware raid-1 as boot/root device
and then appropiate software raid for the rest. If you need speed then
use raid 0+1 else use raid-5
Cheers..
ps. are there hardware raid-controllers for ide, minimum
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Tom Kunz wrote:
SW-RAID List,
This is slightly off-topic. No, in fact it might be further than just
"slightly". I have been exploring redundant network filesystems for
Linux, off and on for the past several months. I need something that
will replicate a fs across
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, paul wrote:
What do these messages mean? I get them in my /var/log/messages every once
in a while (but not at boot).
It appears to be saying that my partitions overlap one another but
that isn't the case.
md: syncing RAID array md5
md: minimum _guaranteed_
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Mike Black wrote:
I just set up a mirror this weekend on an IDE RAID1 - two 5G disks on the
same IDE bus (primary and master).
I was under the impression that I shouldn't see any slowdown and maybe even
a speedup but, alas, it is not so.
If you're at all concerned
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Mark Ferrell wrote:
Maybe you two could work together and make a RaidRoot-HOWTO that covers both lilo
and grub??
I think that's an excellent idea - one stop shopping.
Don't forget, though, that we're only talking about booting RAID 1 here...
not RAID booting in general.
On 23 Aug 1999, Harald Nordgård-Hansen wrote:
James Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How come I've been running this for about a year and a half, then?
I believe he's talking about not having to do *any* non-raid partitions
(ie your /boot I believe, reading your lilo.conf)
(...)
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Tim Walberg wrote:
One method I've seen on another platform (Solaris/Veritas)
is as follows:
1) boot loader knows about a list of the various components
of the boot RAID device (accomplished via eeprom on SPARC)
and will attempt to boot from the first of these it
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, James Deptuck wrote:
Does anyone have any experiences with particular hardware raid controlers
that they'd be willing to share?
What's the most reliable controler?
I have experience with the DPT 3334 in several production servers.
It may not be the fastest hardware RAID
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Mark Ferrell wrote:
I could be off my rocker, but I believe the answer your looking for is the fact
that Lilo cannot correctly use a raid for booting. Typically I would imagine you
would settup / as the mirror, and perhaps make a /boot that's it's own non-raid
partition
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:33:42 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Unnoficial Kernel patch for linux-2.2.10, third try.
This From address is not helpful at all.
Somebody changed something on vger, and now we can no longer tell who the
list messages come from. We
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Paul Hancock wrote:
After rebooting the machine, raid reconstruction started, and I received
several messages, such as:
md8 has overlapping physical units with md2!
md7 has overlapping physical units with md2!
md6 has overlapping physical units with md2!
[...]
md7 has
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Francisco Jose Montilla wrote:
--
Why would I want a two channel RAID card for RAID one?
By putting each harddrive on a separate channel, you can ensure that even
if a cable or terminator on one channel were to go bad, the system would
continue to function.
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Josh Fishman wrote:
Welcome back to the continuing saga of the DPT SmartRAID-V and its
elusive Linux driver! Tune in this week as Josh finds a binary-only
(in fact, form of RedHat 5.x install disks w/ driver in modules.cgz)
driver for kernel 2.0.36 -- which is useless for
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Tom wrote:
If you grab the source, you get copies of the source for eata_dma too.
Download the 2.0.26 kernel source from kernel.org
[...]
Of course, it was developed outside DPT.
The question was about the SmartRAID V
---
You're
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Brothers, John wrote:
Actually, I only need one box, with a mirrored disk and
ideally with hot swap/auto rebuild capabilities as well.
I would look at the hardware RAID SCSI controllers. They provide
always-bootable (i.e. they present a boot sector from the RAID array)
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Or mount the floppy drive internal to the case
That, by the way, is also a good way to greatly reduce the dust inhalation
factor of a floppy drive...
-Andy
Global Auctions
http://www.globalauctions.com
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Louis Mandelstam wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Andy Poling wrote:
I think you missed the part where he said that he wanted RAID level 1
(mirroring, not striping) protection so that his system wouldn't crash due
to a disk failure (of a disk containing swap space
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Dan Bethe wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Louis Mandelstam wrote:
Anyone else running swapspace over RAID1?
The reason why I'd like to do this in the first place, is that the box
involved needs serious uptime/HA, and I don't want to go to all the
trouble of RAIDing
33 matches
Mail list logo
