Hi,
how about Promise Raid 0,1 Controller.
Have a look @ http://www.promise.com/Products/products.htm#ideraid
By, Barney
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Raid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2000 04:03
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: IDE RAID controller?
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 14:24:22 +0100, you wrote:
make a conf file specifying as failed-disk the drive
you cut the power to, then mkraid, data should be there.
Isn't mkraid destructive any more?
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:35:55 +0100, you wrote:
In contrast, raidstart uses the raidtab just for getting ONE device (the
first one) for your raid device. It reads the superblock off this first
devices and uses this info to add the other devices.
On my test machine, I have found out something
At 21:39 04.01.00 GMT, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:59:50 GMT, you wrote:
For a test, I disconnected sda while system power was off and expected
the system to come up on the remaining disks. However, the RAID array
wasn't detected:
|autodetecting RAID arrays
|autorun...
| ...
At 19:59 04.01.00 -, Ron McKelvey wrote:
Out of 4 dirves, I have 2 good drives. I know the data on the 3rd drive is
still good, I just need to force the raid to come back up with no regard to
the event timer and the superblock update time inconsistency.
Can you help me force this thing to
Hi Maillist Members,
I've done a successfull upgrade for my raid5 TestDrive (9x 7MBytes) from mdtools 0.4x
to the aktuell RaidTools 0.90 with persistent-superblock. All auto startup works best.
Due to the Mail from Brian a 'few days' ago I was very carefull with that procedure,
only going step
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 05:35:19PM -0800, Michael wrote:
Could the Raid experts revisit a portion of the discussion about swap
on raid. I understand that the use/non-use of buffer space during
reconsturction vs swap creates a problem for swap on raid, however in
my pea-sized brain it
-Original Message-
From: Kelina
Assuming this is yet again the cause of problems, is anyone else getting
sick of
stupid distros like Suse and Mandrake that include raidtools-0.90 without
including support in the kernel?
I keep replying to these emails, all the users are thankful, but
Raid wrote:
Does anyone know of an ATA-66 IDE RAID controller for Linux? I have seen
the Arco product at http://www.arcoide.com/dupli-pci.htm but it is only
UDMA/33.
You might look at the RaidZone product line (http://www.raidzone.com)
although it might be more than what you're looking
Hi,
is there a way to remove a RAID-1, or to convert the array to an standard
ext2fs, without erasing all the files on the disk ? I would like to keep all
the files without having to do an entire restore of a previous backup which
takes a very long time.
Thanks.
---
Sylvain BARTHELEMY,
On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 11:00:29 +0100, you wrote:
At 21:39 04.01.00 GMT, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:59:50 GMT, you wrote:
For a test, I disconnected sda while system power was off and expected
the system to come up on the remaining disks. However, the RAID array
wasn't detected:
Hi,
I just wanted to warn everybody not to use raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 together with
kernel
2.2.14: at least in my configuration (two IDE drives with RAID-1, root on /dev/mdx)
the
kernel panics with "B_FREE inserted into queues" at boot time.
This seems to be some kind of a known problem,
I think Andrea Arcangeli has a fix for this. Search the lkml
archives for something on set blocksize. It's an incremental
patch over RAID 0.90.
Brian
Hi,
I just wanted to warn everybody not to use raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 together with
kernel
2.2.14: at least in my configuration
I had the same problem with the 2.2.14pre18 configuration I'm using. I
can tell you how to get around it, but not why it happens. (Hey, I'm a
newbie!)
If you edit the /etc/fstab and tell the system not to dump or e2fsck the
raid (set the 5th and 6th columns to 0), everything will boot and
[ Wednesday, January 5, 2000 ] Brian Kress wrote:
I think Andrea Arcangeli has a fix for this. Search the lkml
archives for something on set blocksize. It's an incremental
patch over RAID 0.90.
The set_blocksize patches the last of which I see are at
[ Wednesday, January 5, 2000 ] Brian Kress wrote:
I think Andrea Arcangeli has a fix for this. Search the lkml
archives for something on set blocksize. It's an incremental
patch over RAID 0.90.
Yes, if you are using the new raid code with 2.2.14 you should apply also
this below patch on
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, James Manning wrote:
I noticed set_blocksize was left out... so was it included
in 2.2.14 vanilla and there's a diff. source of the problem
Yes it was included into 2.2.14.
the linux-raid guy is having using the 2.2.11 patch? hmmm
Yes that's the source of the problem.
Hello everyone,
We have had a 108G RAID 5 array (8 * IBM 16G) running rock solid
for months on Linux 2.2.11 using raidtools 0.90.0. We had the array
filled to about 29G when hardware started to hose out. /dev/hdc
started to get weird, and we took it out, replacing it with another
[ Wednesday, January 5, 2000 ] Chris R. Brown wrote:
We have had a 108G RAID 5 array (8 * IBM 16G) running rock solid
for months on Linux 2.2.11 using raidtools 0.90.0. We had the array
filled to about 29G when hardware started to hose out. /dev/hdc
started to get weird, and we took
19 matches
Mail list logo
