On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Rogier Wolff wrote:
If you're seeing THIS kind of errors, it SURE looks like a hardware
issue. If the software is making errors, I'd expect a random byte
Don't understimate the RAM. Some month ago reports like this got solved by
replacing the only RAM in the system.
Andrea
[ 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 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.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
- renaming -make_request_fn() to -logical_volume_fn is both misleading
and unnecessery.
Note that with my proposal it was make_request_fn to be misleading because
all the code run within the callback had anything to do with the
make_request code.
i've
This patch cleanups the new raid code so that we have a chance that LVM on
top of RAID will keep working. It's untested at the moment.
ftp://ftp.*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.2/2.2.17pre13/raid-2.2.17-A0/raid-lvm-cleanup-1
Andrea
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, G.W. Wettstein wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:12pm, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
} Subject: raid-2.2.17-A0 cleanup for LVM
This patch cleanups the new raid code so that we have a chance that LVM on
top of RAID will keep working. It's untested at the moment.
ftp://ftp.*.kernel.org
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
So can't this be fixed?
Everything can be fixed, the fact is that I'm not sure if it worth, we'd
better spend efforts in making 2.4.x more stable than overbackporting
new stuff to 2.2.x... The fix precisely to allow raid5 on raid0 could be
pretty
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Jens Axboe wrote:
I found that increasing the read_latency to match write_latency fixes the
problems perfectly - thanks for the pointer!
Ok good. Andrea, could we bump read latency in 2.2.17-pre?
Yes.
Increasing the read_latency and write_latency to 10,000,000 results
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Corin Hartland-Swann wrote:
I have tried this out, and found that the default settings were:
elevator ID=232 read_latency=128 write_latency=8192 max_bomb_segments=4
(side note: Jens increased bomb segments to 32 in recent 2.2.17)
I think we can apply this patch on top of
