Bill Davidsen wrote:
BERTRAND Joël wrote:
Sorry for this last mail. I have found another mistake, but I
don't know if this bug comes from iscsi-target or raid5 itself. iSCSI
target is disconnected because istd1 and md_d0_raid5 kernel threads
use 100% of CPU each !
Tasks: 235 total,
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 09:53 +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how a properly configured system would start
looking at the physical device by mistake. I suppose it's possible, but
I didn't have this issue.
Mount by label support scans all devices in /proc/partitions looking for
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 00:43 +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
course, this comes at the expense of peak throughput on the device.
Let's say you were building a mondo movie server, where you were
streaming out digital movie files. In that case, you very well may care
more
Justin Piszcz wrote:
[]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Justin, forgive me please, but can you learn to trim the original
messages when
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
There was an idea some years ago about having an additional layer on
between a block device and whatever else is above it (filesystem or
something else), that will just do bad block remapping. Maybe it was
even implemented in LVM or IBM-proposed
Doug Ledford wrote:
[]
1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 are the same format, just in different positions on
the disk. Of the three, the 1.1 format is the safest to use since it
won't allow you to accidentally have some sort of metadata between the
beginning of the disk and the raid superblock (such as an
Michael == Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Doug Ledford wrote:
Michael []
1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 are the same format, just in different positions on
the disk. Of the three, the 1.1 format is the safest to use since it
won't allow you to accidentally have some sort of metadata
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:52:39AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Michael Well, I strongly, completely disagree. You described a
Michael real-world situation, and that's unfortunate, BUT: for at
Michael least raid1, there ARE cases, pretty valid ones, when one
Michael NEEDS to mount the
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 17:07 +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:52:39AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Michael Well, I strongly, completely disagree. You described a
Michael real-world situation, and that's unfortunate, BUT: for at
Michael least raid1, there ARE cases, pretty
John Stoffel wrote:
Michael == Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[]
Michael Well, I strongly, completely disagree. You described a
Michael real-world situation, and that's unfortunate, BUT: for at
Michael least raid1, there ARE cases, pretty valid ones, when one
Michael NEEDS to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:45:20 -0700 (PDT), nefilim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[ ... ]
3 x 500GB WD RE2 hard drives
AMD Athlon XP 2400 (2.0Ghz), 1GB RAM
[ ... ]
avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
1.010.00 55.56 40.400.003.03
[ ... ]
which is
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:05 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
[]
Got it, so for RAID1 it would make sense if LILO supported it (the
later versions of the md superblock)
Lilo doesn't know anything about the superblock format,
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 22:38 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:05 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
[]
Got it, so for RAID1 it would make sense if LILO supported it (the
later versions of the md superblock)
13 matches
Mail list logo
