on the drive.
Hey Seth,
Sorry to hear about your drive failures. To me, this is something that
most people ignore about RAID5: Lose more than one drive and everything is
toast. Good reason to have a drive setup as a hot spare, not to mention an
extra drive laying on the shelf. And hold your breathe while
Hey Seth,
Sorry to hear about your drive failures. To me, this is something that
most people ignore about RAID5: Lose more than one drive and everything is
toast. Good reason to have a drive setup as a hot spare, not to mention an
extra drive laying on the shelf. And hold your breathe
Could this be a powersupply failure?
For example. I've seen 144 V on the motherboard. None of the drives
survived as you can expect. It was after a storm with lightnings :-)
Szilva
--
http://www.wbic.cam.ac.uk/~sj233
Hi Danilo,
[root@mrqserv2 linux]# mkraid /dev/md0
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
disk 0: /dev/sdb1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
disk 1: /dev/sdc1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
disk 2: /dev/sda6, failed
mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:17:18AM +0200, Martin Bene wrote:
"dangerous" tools. Bzw, has anyone checked what's different in this tools
package in comparison to the 19990824 release?
yes it raises the max number of devices per superblock!!!
--
Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Communication
Hi,
We've been using the sw raid 5 support in linux for about 2-3 months now.
We've had good luck with it.
Until this week.
In this one week we've lost two drives on a 3 drive array. Completely
eliminating the array. We have good backups, made everynight, so the data
is safe. The problem is
I have a quite large (~490G) raid5 array for slink (originally 2.2.13) and
succeed in to shut down incorretly. There was no any hardware failure, but
ckraid did not fixed the array. Seems stucked about 10-20% completion
(I've tried to run it about 5 times, the completion percentage was
different
i want to use my 3 4gb uw harddiscs in a raid5 combination
i do the steps discribed in the howto at
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Boot+Root+Raid+LILO-4.html
my /etc/raidtab
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 5
nr-raid-disks 3
chunk-size 32
# Spare
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Hermann 'mrq1' Gausterer wrote:
but when i do mkraid, i get an error :-(((
[root@mrqserv2 linux]# mkraid /dev/md0
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
disk 0: /dev/sdb1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
disk 1: /dev/sdc1, 4233096kB, raid
hi,
to everybody on the list, thank you again
for your help, it works ! :-))
[mrq1@mrqserv2 mrq1]$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 sda1[3] sdc1[1] sdb1[0] 8466048 blocks level 5, 32k
chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_
Dear Alvin,
OnSun, 16 Jul 2000 22:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Alvin Oga) said:
hi "raiders"...
i recently changed my raid5 box that was running on debian-2.2
into a new atx case new linux-2.2.16...etc.e.tc...
-
- its in a 1U raid5 box
Dear Raid users,
I've been using RAID5 system for nearly six months without problem,
but recently the machine halted while the rebooting process (displayed
message attached below). I tried old valid kernels and some succeeded
to boot, but the md device(/dev/md0) was still invisible. According
hi "raiders"...
i recently changed my raid5 box that was running on debian-2.2
into a new atx case new linux-2.2.16...etc.e.tc...
-
- its in a 1U raid5 box... worlds first ??
-
seems like mkraid does various different things ???
some mkraid works and othe
Hi..
due to a system crash one partition of the raid
array has an invalid event counter... so my array runs un degraded mode...
but how can I integrate it back to the array???
Where does raid store the superblockinfo??
I tried to remove the partition with fdisk,
recreatet it, formated it,
Hi,
As far as I know "raidhotadd" is what you need.
Tamas.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Patrick Scharrenberg wrote:
Hi..
due to a system crash one partition of the raid array has an invalid event
counter... so my array runs un degraded mode...
but how can I integrate it back to the array???
't work. What do you mean when
you write "nothing works"?
Horst Zymelka
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2000 17:53
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: RAID5
Hallo liebe Linux- und
ymelka
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2000 17:53
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: RAID5
Hallo liebe Linux- und RAID-Freunde,
nach mehrfachem Lesen von man-pages und eini
I've had this problem. It was due to that disk being damaged. I suggest
you do a scan on that disk with the scsi utility of your controller. If
it reports bad sectors and such, swap the disk, create the linux raid
partition on it and hot swap it in, as described in the HOWTO
--
ai
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo liebe Linux- und RAID-Freunde,
nach mehrfachem Lesen von man-pages und einigen vergeblichen Versuchen ein
RAID5 auf der Basis von drei Festplatten aufzubauen, fühle ich mich durch
Ihren Vermerk ermuntert Sie doch anzusprechen.
Be sure
hi ya "raiders"
i just upgraded my old sw raid5 on debian-2.2 w/ linux-2.2.10
to linux-2.2.16 w/ the patches from mingo's patch dirs...
works good...nice and clean...no problems...
good work guys
and my (abbreviated) collection of raid stuff...
http://www.linux-consulting.com/Raid/
At 17:25 Uhr -0700 05.07.2000, Ben wrote:
So I can't get your point.
Well, unfortunately we're using IDE drives, each connected to an IDE/SCSI
adapter
Okay, this wasn't clear. Sorry.
Simply test by copying something onto it, sync, work otherwise so the
kernel buffers get flushed and read
Hi,
Well, unfortunately we're using IDE drives, each connected to an IDE/SCSI
adapter, which has an ide interface on one side and a scsi-2 interface on
the other. As we're on something of a budget, this is what we have to work
with if we're going for storage volume.
If you use the same type
We just made ourselves a raid5 software raid out of 7 60GB drives, using
the 2.2.11 kernel, appropriate patches, and the raid 0.90 tools. The
drives are all connected on the same SCSI-2 bus (we care about quantity
and reliability, not speed), which is obviously not a performance deamon
but should
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Ben wrote:
The drives are all connected on the same SCSI-2 bus (we care about
quantity and reliability, not speed), which is obviously not a
performance deamon but should work just fine.
If you care for reability, you should probably end up in using some sort
of hardware
If you care for reability, you should probably end up in using some sort
of hardware array instead. For many persons linux raid works reliable and
very fine. Also does LVD-SCSI in it's U2W incarnation which is also way
faster than simple FAST-SCSI-WIDE (what in fact is the most you can get
I find that my RAID5 array is just too slow for my DB application. I
have a large number of DB files on this array. I would like to
convert to RAID0, and I can back up my files, but I was wondering if
there is a way to convert without reformatting?
Dave
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I find that my RAID5 array is just too slow for my DB application. I
have a large number of DB files on this array. I would like to
convert to RAID0, and I can back up my files, but I was wondering if
there is a way to convert without reformatting?
Not currently
,
James more memory, etc)
OK, I wasn't aware of the chunk size and -R stride= tunings. Where
can I read about these?
I was also under the impression that reiserfs was not working/stable
over software RAID5. Has that changed?
James Just a thought, although for anything OLTP-ish you're going
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes, I know that. Unfortunately, I'm working on an extremely
insert-heavy application (over 100 million records per day). I would
really like ReiserFS (due to the large file size as well as for the
journaling). I don't see how RAID5 can meet my needs.
FWIW, ReiserFS
Hi all,
I've been using raid5 with auto-detection for over a year without
problems. Everything including the root fs is on raid5, the machine
boots from floppy.
I now want to rearrange the disks in raid0 arrays, and make a raid5 of
these. Will auto-detection/autostart work in this case
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Carvalho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: autostart with raid5 over raid0?
Hi all,
I've been using raid5 with auto-detection for over a year without
problems. Everything including
Hi,
How to shutdown a computer properly so that the
raid5 will sync properly during shutdown?
Leng Wee
James Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[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
-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
-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
]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
No size specified, using 200 MB
Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
File Block Num Seq ReadRand Read Seq Write Rand Write
DirSize Size Thr Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU
[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
-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,
I guess this kind of thing would be great to be detailed in the FAQ.
Anyone care to swap statistics so I know how valid these are.
This is with an Adaptec AIC-7895 Ultra SCSI host adapter.
Is this good, reasonable or bad timing?
[darren@bod bonnie++-1.00a]$ bonnie++ -d /raid5 -m bod -s 90mb
Hallo!
I have some problems with my RAID5-system. The setup worked fine,
everything is running. But if I copy files to my RAID-drive, the files are
corrupt - that means, if I have copied a zipped file to my disks and want
to unzip it, I get some CRC-errors. I compared the file on the RAID
Hi there:
I installed red-hat6.2 and raidtools are within
it.
I made a raid5:
my /etc/raidtab
raiddev
/dev/md0raid-level
5nr-raid-disks
3nr-spare-disks
0persistent-superblock
1chunk-size
4
parity-algorithm
left-symmetric
device
/dev/sda7raid-disk
0device
/dev/sdb1raid-disk
1
Hello,
I have all my backup on server with 8 EIDE disk in RAID5 array. This
server was cold rebooted and now RAID5 has unconsistent superblock. Is
there any posibility to get my data back from RAID ?
Thanks,
Pavel
This is what happens when I try to start raid (raidstart):
May 18 16:38:27
n with hdh2 included.
Good luck!
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Pavel Kucera" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:46 AM
Subject: Help with RAID5 damage please
Hello,
I have all my backup on server with 8 EIDE disk in RAID5 array.
Hi there,
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Richard Bollinger wrote:
May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdh2's event counter: 000a
May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdg2's event counter: 0008
May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdf2's event counter: 0008
May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hde2's event
-Original Message-
From: octave klaba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:25 AM
To: Thomas Scholten
Cc: Linux Raid Mailingliste
Subject: Re: How to test raid5 performance best ?
1. Which tools should i use to test raid-performace ?
tiotest.
I lost
Hello All,
some day ago i joined the Software-Raid-Club :) I'm now running a SCSI-Raid5
with 3 2 GB partitions. I choosed a chunk-size of 32 kb. Referring to the
FAQ i'm told to experiment to get best performance chunk-size, but i
definitly have no good clue how to test performace :-/
so please
Hi,
1. Which tools should i use to test raid-performace ?
tiotest.
I lost the official url
you can download it from http://ftp.ovh.net/tiotest-0.25.tar.gz
2. is it possible to add disks to a raid5 after its been started ?
good question ;)
--
Amicalement,
oCtAvE
Connexion terminée par
Summary: raid5_error needs to handle the first scsi error from a device and
do the necessary action, but silently return on subsequent failures.
- 3 h/w raid0's in a s/w raid5
- initial resync isn't finished (not important)
- scsi error passed up takes out one of the devices
bug
Hello
I did remove sdq1 from my 6-device autodetecting kernel 2.2.11-raid5-set.
Now there's no way,
to bring it back. 'No spare-disk' it says. What do I need to do?
I tried to rearange the sequenze in /etc/raidtab (device 0 to the bottom)
I added a spare-disk in raidtab.
Please see the boot
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
So no problem, I have 3 of the four left, right? The array was marked [_UUU]
just before I power cycled (the disk was crashing) and since it had been
marked faulty, I was able to raidhotremove the underlined one.
But now, it won't boot into
i1's event counter: 0081
hdg1's event counter: 0081
hdk1's event counter: 0081
md: md1: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction
raid5 personality registered
md1: max total readahead window set to 384k
md1: 3 data-disks, max
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
I'm confused. I thought I WAS boot-time autostarting. RedHat's
definitely autodetecting and starting the array very early in the boot
process, but I'm clearly not entirely properly setup here because my
partition types are not 0xfd, which seems
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, "Ingo" == Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo well, it was boot-time 'very early' autostarting, but not
Ingo RAID-autostarting in the classic sense.
Understood.
Ingo I think i'll fix raidstart to simply iterate through all available
Ingo partitions, until one is started up
Folks,
My array decided to show me what was wrong with it (see my posts earlier
today). It was a comprehensive head crash which was slow coming on but which
eventually took the disk totally out of action. The Promise card does not even
see it . . . :-(
So no problem, I have 3 of the four left,
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, "Darren" == Darren Nickerson wrote:
Darren But now, it won't boot into degraded mode. As I try to boot redhat to
Darren single user, I am told:
Darren Starting up RAID devices: /dev/md1: Invalid Argument
Darren /dev/md1 is not a Raid0 or linear array
Darren
normal partitions.
I want to get my 4 ~20GB drives into a raid5 setup, with 3 data disks
using 18GB of each, and one parity disk, so i can have about 54GB of
storage
I will use about 2GB from each of the 5 drives for a raid0
And whats left over for the linux system
Is it possible to integrate
Its a nice complicated case of semaphores in threaded (multi process?) systems ...
... one system needs to be aware that the other system isn't ready yet, without
causing incompatibilities. With RAID, would it be possible for the MD driver to
actually accept the mount request but halt the
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
Hi all,
I think my situation is the same as this "two failed disks" one but I
haven't been following the thread carefully and I just want to double check.
I have a mirrored RAID-1 setup between 2 disks with no spare disks.
I've found some cash, and want to add a spare disk to our raid5 array for
added redundancy.
Can this be done? It is a matter of
1. raidstop
2. add spare to raidtab
3. raidhotadd spare
or is it more a matter of
1. raidstop
2. cry
3. mkraid
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, "Gregory" == Gregory Leblanc wrote:
+ I've found some cash, and want to add a spare disk to our
+ raid5 array for
+ added redundancy.
+ Can this be done? It is a matter of
+ 1. raidstop
+ 2. add spare to raidtab
+ 3. raidhotadd spare
Gregory
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:44:49 +0200, you wrote:
It _is_ in the docs.
Which docs do you refer to? I must have missed this.
Section 6.1 in http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
Didn't you actually mention it yourself ? :)
(don't remember -
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 15:28:28 +0200, you wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:44:49 +0200, you wrote:
It _is_ in the docs.
Which docs do you refer to? I must have missed this.
Section 6.1 in http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
Didn't you actually
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I did. However, I'd add a sentence mentioning that in this case
mkraid probably won't be destructive to the HOWTO. After the mkraid
warning, I aborted the procedure and started asking. I think this
should be avoided in the future.
I have
Hi all,
I think my situation is the same as this "two failed disks" one but I
haven't been following the thread carefully and I just want to double check.
I have a mirrored RAID-1 setup between 2 disks with no spare disks.
Inadvertantly the machine got powered down without a
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
I think my situation is the same as this "two failed disks" one but I
haven't been following the thread carefully and I just want to double check.
I have a mirrored RAID-1 setup between 2 disks with no spare disks.
Inadvertantly the
nt: Monday, April 03, 2000 8:50 AM
To: Rainer Mager
Cc: Jakob Ostergaard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Raid5 with two failed disks?
Whether or not the array is in sync should not make a difference to the
boot process. I have both raid1 and raid 5 systems that run root raid and
will boot qu
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Raid5 with two failed disks?
Whether or not the array is in sync should not make a difference to the
boot process. I have both raid1 and raid 5 systems that run root raid and
will boot quite nicely and rsync automatically after a "dumb" shutdown
that lea
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:20:57 +0200, you wrote:
At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
monitor. I rebooted the system
of RAID (ignoring things like RAID 5 over
mirrored disks and such).
You just can't do that with RAID5. I seem to remember that there's a RAID 6
or 7 that handles 2 disk failures (multiple parity devices or something like
that.)
You can optionally do RAID 5+1 where you mirror partitions
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:20:57 +0200, you wrote:
At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 out of 4 disks were out
of sync
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Martin Bene wrote:
At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 out of 4 disks were out
of sync
disks and such).
You just can't do that with RAID5. I seem to remember that there's a RAID 6
or 7 that handles 2 disk failures (multiple parity devices or something like
that.)
You can optionally do RAID 5+1 where you mirror partitions and then stripe
across them ala RAID 0+1. You'd have
Thanks to all, it worked!
Hi Bill,
Thursday, March 30, 2000, 4:36:52 PM, you wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a different project, how bad would
it be to setup RAID 5 to allow for 2 (or more) failures in an array?
Or is this handled under a different class of RAID (ignoring things
like RAID 5 over mirrored
of RAID (ignoring things like RAID 5 over
mirrored disks and such).
You just can't do that with RAID5. I seem to remember that there's a RAID 6
or 7 that handles 2 disk failures (multiple parity devices or something like
that.)
You can optionally do RAID 5+1 where you mirror partitions
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:21:45PM -0600, Bill Carlson wrote:
1+5 would still fail on 2 drives if those 2 drives where both from the
same RAID 1 set. The wasted space becomes more than N/2, but it might
worth it for the HA aspect. RAID 6 looks
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:10:13 GMT, you wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:36:18 -0500, you wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm on crack and need to lay off the pipe a little while, but
it appears that sdf7 doesn't have a partition type of "fd" and as such
isn't getting considered for inclusion in md0.
Nope, all
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:54:03 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Douglas Egan wrote:
When this happened to me I had to "raidhotadd" to get it back in the
list. What does your /proc/mdstat indicate?
Try:
raidhotadd /dev/md0 /dev/sde7
I *think* you should 'raidhotremove' the
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:36:18 -0500, you wrote:
[Marc Haber]
|autorun ...
|considering sde7 ...
|adding sde7 ...
|adding sdd7 ...
|adding sdc7 ...
|adding sdb7 ...
|adding sda7 ...
|created md0
Ok, maybe I'm on crack and need to lay off the pipe a little while, but
it appears that sdf7
I tried to upgrade to the 2.4[pre] kernel, but my system hangs when tring to
mount the raid5 array.
After perusing this list a bit I discovered that raid5 doesn't yet exist for
2.4. Grr.
What can I do to boot 2.4?with or without raid5?
I tried commenting out the /dev/md line in my /etc
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Douglas Egan wrote:
When this happened to me I had to "raidhotadd" to get it back in the
list. What does your /proc/mdstat indicate?
Try:
raidhotadd /dev/md0 /dev/sde7
I *think* you should 'raidhotremove' the failed disk-partition first, then
you can 'raidhotadd'
ot;fd" and as such
isn't getting considered for inclusion in md0.
sde7 failure + lack of available sdf7 == 2 "failed" disks == dead raid5
James, waiting for the inevitable smack of being wrong
eads. I've done tiotest runs too and I'll
be doing more benchmarks on RAID5 soon. If anyone wants me to post
figures, I'll do so.
Go ahead and post the tiobenches as well!
Cheers,
--
_/\ Christian Reis is sometimes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\/~ suicide architect | free software advocate | mountain biker
ipts raidstart
call won't be necessary). Could you paste any "autorun" section of md
initialization during boot?
does the same problem appear even if you build-in raid5? (first-pass
debugging of building-in all raid-related scsi and md modules just to
get initrd and module ordering is
Having some problems setting up IDE RAID5 on Kernel 2.2.14
Kernel: 2.2.14
Patches:
ide_2_2_14_2124_patch.gz
raid-2_2.14-B1 (Encountered Hunk problems, but I've heard this is
normal)
Tools:
raidtools-19990824-0_90_tar.gz
I have three Segate 6GB ATA66 Harddrives, two of which are hanging
-Original Message-
From: root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problems with IDE RAID5
Having some problems setting up IDE RAID5 on Kernel 2.2.14
Kernel: 2.2.14
Patches:
ide_2_2_14_2124_patch.gz
raid
build a raid 5 array (5 disks) it builds and I can mount and write
things to it.
I'm not doing root fs on it but I build a new initrd anyway - it builds
and includes the raid5 modules - I rerun lilo.
I boot.
I get raidstart /dev/md0
invalid argument /dev/md0
I've checked the archives
When booting my new Dell 4400, pre-installed with Red Hat 6.1, the
raid5 checksumming function it chooses is not the fastest. I get:
raid5: measuring checksumming speed
raid5: KNI detected,...
pIII_kni: 1078.611 MB/sec
raid5: MMX detected,...
pII_mmx : 1304.925
hello! a small question...
I need this configuration :
3 disks scsi
-- 3 partion ext2 in Raid 5 (mounted on / ) of 4081mb [md0]
-- 3 partition swap in Raid 5 of 250mb [md1]
it's possible and it is performing?
thanks
p.s.: sorry for my bad english... i'm italian..
Matteo Sgalaberni
At 15:43 04.03.00, you wrote:
3 disks scsi
-- 3 partion ext2 in Raid 5 (mounted on / ) of 4081mb [md0]
-- 3 partition swap in Raid 5 of 250mb [md1]
it's possible and it is performing?
Almost - you can't boot off a raid5; however, you CAN boot off raid1. Also,
I wouldn't use raid5 for swap
of
the nfs client, not the server side.
Hopefully, this problem will get resolved soon, but it looks like it has been with us
for
some time now (2 years.)
Lance.
Mar 1 22:33:10 src@lance-v raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[2], sector 26272 exists
Mar 1 22:33:10 src@lance-v raid5: bh c100b680, bh_new
printed by the kernel:
raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[5], sector XXX exists
The dd_idx argument is always 5 in the cases observed
so far, but the sector number XXX is different.
- This message seems to be provoked by the function
add_stripe_bh() in raid5.c. What does this bug message
months of heavy usage. However, yesterday I saw some
disturbing lines on one of the consoles:
raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[4], sector 8419312 exists
raid5: bh e2927d20, bh_new d2f1eaa0
raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[3], sector 8421384 exists
raid5: bh efbc6d40, bh_new e563cc60
How many lines
going on, and my experience is that the RAID5 arrays are Very Very
Fast. We have some 50 disks from IBM, and have experienced hardware failure
on 2, I think that's pretty normal. With RAID5 and an extra disk in each
array, these disk failures are not a big problem.
disturbing lines on one
Is it possible to add more drives to a current raid5 array (software raid)
without taking down the array and starting from scratch?
gary hostetler
saw some
disturbing lines on one of the consoles:
raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[4], sector 8419312 exists
raid5: bh e2927d20, bh_new d2f1eaa0
raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[3], sector 8421384 exists
raid5: bh efbc6d40, bh_new e563cc60
What does this mean?
Should I be worries?
Anything I can do
Hi,
for the past week I've been fighting to get a RAID5 System running under
SuSE 6.3 linux. I have finally met success and want to share my Odysee with
you and future foolhardy people.
First thing: The Raidtools 0.90 HOWTO oversimplifies certain aspects. The
one-liner on unpacking
Thank you for all the reply's I received.
I figured out what the problem was, and of course it was something that makes you want
to kick yourself
right in the %*@#^! Anyway, I was using the wrong boot disk! I was using the boot and
suplemental disks
for RH6.0 for a RH6.1 installation. The thing
I took the patch I grabbed at work on a SUN box and loaded it... it was 60K
smaller than the one I was loading last night. Patched a fresh 2.2.14
kernel with no problems and the raid is up and running!
Thanks for everyone's help, and Damn you, Bill Gates for your Kludged 8 bit
GUI OS!
At
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
