On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>> Among this thread, and the several others bugs on this topic (various
>> aspects of booting degraded RAID), it seems that there are a number of
>> different (perhaps even conflicting) expectations o
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> Among this thread, and the several others bugs on this topic (various
> aspects of booting degraded RAID), it seems that there are a number of
> different (perhaps even conflicting) expectations on this topic.
Could you elaborate? I've seen mention of various enhancements
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Kees Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:36PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> Now having said that I'm glad that this problem is finally getting some
>> attention. But for it to be a viable option here it has to be in a LTS
>> release so w
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:22:18PM -0600, Sam Howard wrote:
> Thanks for the follow up ... I suspected that you had just typeo'd
> your example scenario, but wanted to clarify it for me and everyone
> else following along.
Sure. Thanks for catching it and pointing it out.
>> I hear you. All my se
Soren,
Thanks for the follow up ... I suspected that you had just typeo'd your
example scenario, but wanted to clarify it for me and everyone else
following along.
> I hear you. All my servers are, in fact, remote. I'm however in the
> happy situation that if a machine fails to come online after
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 01:56:24PM -0600, Sam Howard wrote:
> I really don't want to get into the middle of a flame war,
Yes, sorry about that.
> but I don't understand something you wrote and would like
> clarification so that I am not assuming something incorrectly.
Certainly.
>> Imagine a s
Based on the beginning of this thread, Michael, it looks to me like you want
to boot your degraded raid array anyway (not necessarily remotely, but that
would be nice too).
I found this forum thread which may or may not be helpful in that respect:
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-634548
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would my rant be any better received if I pointed out that this stuff has
> worked just fine in versions of Red Hat and Windows dating back almost a
> decade.
Absolutely in no way possible your rant would be better receive
Hi.
I really don't want to get into the middle of a flame war, but I don't
understand something you wrote and would like clarification so that I am not
assuming something incorrectly.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm quite happy that the server doe
Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:49AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>> "Just Work" in this context means different things to different
>>> people. To me, "Just Work" means that it above all doesn't corrupt
>>> my data. To others, it might mean "start the sucker no matter what,
>>>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:49AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
>> "Just Work" in this context means different things to different
>> people. To me, "Just Work" means that it above all doesn't corrupt
>> my data. To others, it might mean "start the sucker no matter what,
>> so that I can get on with
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:36PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> But I don't think that Michael is alone here. I know that this particular
> issue has prevented us from deploying Ubuntu on our servers. I would
> imagine that this issue is a show stopper for other potential customers who
> wou
Rants aside...there are definitely some use cases that currently aren't
possible. I think we can all agree on that.
But I don't think that Michael is alone here. I know that this particular
issue has prevented us from deploying Ubuntu on our servers. I would
imagine that this issue is a show st
Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:20:45AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
> implementation?
Just because it doesn't boot without interven
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:20:45AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
"production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
implementation?
>>> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
>>> R
Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:10AM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
>>> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
>>> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
>>> implementation?
>> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:10AM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
>> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
>> "production" Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
>> implementation?
> Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
> RAID, that d
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the "production"
> Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID implementation?
Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
RAID, th
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> Michael-
>
> I have been working on this very extensively recently. Is there any
> chance you can check if the cd images for Intrepid do what you want
> them to do?
>
> I'm on vacation at the moment but had the opportunity to check my
> email and saw your note.
>
> If y
Michael-
I have been working on this very extensively recently. Is there any
chance you can check if the cd images for Intrepid do what you want
them to do?
I'm on vacation at the moment but had the opportunity to check my
email and saw your note.
If you check at least test the daily Intrepid i
Nick Barcet wrote:
> Michael Hipp wrote:
>> I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical
>> disks
>> in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But
>> if
>> I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
>>
Michael Hipp wrote:
> I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical
> disks
> in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But
> if
> I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
> RAID is degraded and I can
I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical disks
in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But if
I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
RAID is degraded and I can boot from it if only I will type m
23 matches
Mail list logo
