Re: mdadm: RUN_ARRAY failed: Cannot allocate memory

2007-03-29 Thread Neil Brown
On Saturday March 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Neil , I found the problem that caused the 'cannot allcate memory' , DON'T use '--bitmap=' . But that said , H , Shouldn't mdadm just stop say ... 'md: bitmaps not supported for this level.' Like it puts

Re: split raid1 into to arrays

2007-03-29 Thread Dirk Jagdmann
The fast way (not redundant): You can mark hdb as failed, then remove it. Then you can create a new array using hdb and a missing device. Used this way and it worked. -- --- Dirk Jagdmann http://cubic.org/~doj - http://llg.cubic.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)

2007-03-29 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Neil Brown wrote: On Tuesday March 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ran a check on my SW RAID devices this morning. However, when I did so, I had a few lftp sessions open pulling files. After I executed the check, the lftp processes entered 'D' state and I could do

Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)

2007-03-29 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay

Re: Software RAID (non-preempt) server blocking question. (2.6.20.4)

2007-03-29 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: Did you look at cat /proc/mdstat ?? What sort of speed was the check running at? Around 44MB/s. I do use the following optimization, perhaps a bad idea if I want other processes to 'stay alive'? echo Setting minimum resync speed to 200MB/s...

is this raid5 OK ?

2007-03-29 Thread Rainer Fuegenstein
hi, I manually created my first raid5 on 4 400 GB pata harddisks: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --spare-devices=0 /dev/hde1 /dev/hdf1 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdh1 mdadm: layout defaults to left-symmetric mdadm: chunk size defaults to 64K mdadm: size

Re: is this raid5 OK ?

2007-03-29 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Rainer Fuegenstein wrote: hi, I manually created my first raid5 on 4 400 GB pata harddisks: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --spare-devices=0 /dev/hde1 /dev/hdf1 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdh1 mdadm: layout defaults to

Re: is this raid5 OK ?

2007-03-29 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, I manually created my first raid5 on 4 400 GB pata harddisks: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --spare-devices=0 /dev/hde1 /dev/hdf1 /dev/hdg1 /dev/hdh1 mdadm: layout defaults to

Re: is this raid5 OK ?

2007-03-29 Thread Dan Williams
On 3/29/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, I manually created my first raid5 on 4 400 GB pata harddisks: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mdadm --create --verbose /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 --spare-devices=0 /dev/hde1 /dev/hdf1