Re: raidstop --all doesn't do its job
Turns out the the usage info for raidstop is bogus. raidstop does NOT read
the raidtab -- it wants you to be specific about what you want to stop:
/*
* stop is special, we want to get it done
* without parsing the config
*/
if ((func == raidstop) || (func == raidstop_ro)) {
int fd;
args = poptGetArgs(optCon);
if (!args) {
fprintf(stderr, "nothing to do!\n");
usage(namestart, func);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
Maybe the usage info should be updated for raidstop??
Michael D. Black Principal Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 321-676-2923,x203
http://www.csihq.com Computer Science Innovations
http://www.csihq.com/~mike My home page
FAX 321-676-2355
Re: raidstop --all doesn't do its job
In ka.lists.linux.raid, you wrote: Turns out the the usage info for raidstop is bogus. raidstop does NOT read the raidtab -- it wants you to be specific about what you want to stop: Maybe the usage info should be updated for raidstop?? The bogus usage info should be fixed, indeed ;-) However, I find that a raidstop --all is necessary. Otherwise, the system shutdown scripts would have to know about all RAID devices to stop them all if autodetection isn't being used. This could easily lead to a situation where the system is shut down with still active md devices. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: LOTS OF BAD STUFF in raid0: raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 is unstable
i/o buffers that just gets exacerbated by other problems, heavy I/O, cache problems (like overheated CPU), cables, etc. Overheating CPU's corrupt memory, fail cache coherency and do other things of that nature. On an x86 box an overheated CPU is a loose cannon. It can cause almost anything Alan
RE: superblock Q/clarification
David Cooley wrote: When I first set up my Raid 5, I made the partitions with Fdisk, and started /dev/hdc1 at block 0, the end was the end of the disk (single partition per drive except /dev/hdc5 is type whole disk). It ran fine until I rebooted, when it came up and said there was no valid superblock. I re-fdisked the drives and re-ran mkraid and all was well until I rebooted. I read somewhere (can't remember where though) that block 0 had to be isolated as the superblock was written there... I re-fdisked all my drives so partition /dev/hdx1 started at block 1 instead of zero and haven't had a problem since. I'm running Kernel 2.2.12 with raidtools 0.90 and all the patches.. I had a similar experience in setting up Raid 1 devices. Same Kernel and patches. Now my raid disks have nothing in block 0. For a while, I was using mismatched raid kernel and raidtools patches, so that might have been the point where I tried this solution. Bob Gerrish
RE: ide and hot swap
Seth Vidal wrote: We've got DLT's doing backups right now and we're conceiving that it might be cheaper to setup a system with 2 or 3 linear striped or raid 0 34+gig ide disks and have 2 sets of these disks that we swap out week to week for backups - rather than spend a fortune in DLT tapes and deal with a whopping 4MB/s transfer time. We would be using a set of disks for 4 weeks then swapping out to another set - the other set would be fresh formatted at that point and would be ready to go for the next month's backups. Price wise, this seems like a good approach. If it were my system, I would be concerned about disaster recovery. I have been a believer for a long time in tape rotation and offsite storage. Also, you are risking losing 4 weeks worth of data; a full backup at least weekly and incremental backups can save your business. You not only should think about system failures, but fires, floods, etc. An onsite disk storage scheme doesn't take these situations into account. Perhaps, if you want to consider alternate storage, you should look at optical media or some other approach. Bob Gerrish
RE: [new release] raidreconf utility
From: Jakob Østergaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:56 PM To: Linux RAID mailing list Subject: Re: [new release] raidreconf utility My only experience with LVM is from HPUX. I could create the equivalent of RAID-0 there using LVM only, and it is my understanding that LVM for Linux can do the same. It should indeed be possible to create the equivalent of RAID-5 as well, using only LVM. But still the LVM would have to support extending the parity-VG. raidreconf will hopefully be useful for people to do these tricks, until the LVM gets the needed features (which may be years ahead). LVM on HPUX handles RAID-1, whereas LVM on linux does not support mirroring. HPUX does give you the ability to expand the size of the RAID-1 devices in a volume group. It is my understanding, that you would have to have RAID-5 or RAID-0 under RAID-1 to get this to work in software raid. Both schemes are lacking the ability to handle expansion of RAID-1 under linux. IMHO the support for redundancy should be in the LVM layer. This would eliminate the need for RAID support as we know it today, because LVM could provide the same functionality, only even more flexible. But it will take time. In the little bit I have been following the linux-lvm mailing list, it does not look like they are prusuing RAID-1 implementation with LVM. Bob Gerrish
RE: ide and hot swap
Price wise, this seems like a good approach. If it were my system, I would be concerned about disaster recovery. I have been a believer for a long time in tape rotation and offsite storage. Also, you are risking losing 4 weeks worth of data; a full backup at least weekly and incremental backups can save your business. You not only should think about system failures, but fires, floods, etc. An onsite disk storage scheme doesn't take these situations into account. Perhaps, if you want to consider alternate storage, you should look at optical media or some other approach. but I'm talking about doing full rotations. Right now we're loading 7 tapes into the DLT jukebox and it rotates for a month through those. Then the level 0 tapes come out and go to my house for offsite storage. We start over (more or less) every month. I was proposing using 2 or 3 big ide's every month. We do risk losing 4 weeks from a fire but we Always have risked that. But all other storages are offsite. You risk losing whatever's in the room at the time of a fire. While 4 weeks is greater than 1 day it might be a tolerable risk. my biggest concern is MTBF and not fires. Fires are a mess but your data (while important) is not the first concern after a fire - rebuilding is. Its the random drive failures and overwrites that I think most backups protect from. -sv
Offtopic: LVD U2W drives on UW SCSI-3 controller
Hi; Sorry about the somewhat offtopic question, but I have a supplier of mine trying to tell me that LVD U2W dries will work on my Symbios 53C875 UW SCSI-3 controller. Will LVD U2W drives work on a UW controller? I thought that LVD was quite different than other forms of scsi. Thanks Chris
Re: Offtopic: LVD U2W drives on UW SCSI-3 controller
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about the somewhat offtopic question, but I have a supplier of mine trying to tell me that LVD U2W dries will work on my Symbios 53C875 UW SCSI-3 controller. Will LVD U2W drives work on a UW controller? I thought that LVD was quite different than other forms of scsi. LVD U2W scsi is backwards compatible with UW. It's probably backwards compatible with fast-wide as well. I have systems running with IBM LVD drives and AHA-2940UW cards. You can't mix LVD and UW drives on the same chain and do any better than UW though. -- Jon Lewis *[EMAIL PROTECTED]*| Spammers will be winnuked or System Administrator| nestea'd...whatever it takes Atlantic Net| to get the job done. _http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__
Re: Offtopic: LVD U2W drives on UW SCSI-3 controller
I have an LVD on a UW controler, but the drive itself is selectable between single-ended and double-ended operation. I was really not aware of any drives capable of detecting the bus and auto-configuring itself .. shrug .. who knows. On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 12:00:28AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about the somewhat offtopic question, but I have a supplier of mine trying to tell me that LVD U2W dries will work on my Symbios 53C875 UW SCSI-3 controller. Will LVD U2W drives work on a UW controller? I thought that LVD was quite different than other forms of scsi. LVD U2W scsi is backwards compatible with UW. It's probably backwards compatible with fast-wide as well. I have systems running with IBM LVD drives and AHA-2940UW cards. You can't mix LVD and UW drives on the same chain and do any better than UW though. -- Jon Lewis *[EMAIL PROTECTED]*| Spammers will be winnuked or System Administrator| nestea'd...whatever it takes Atlantic Net| to get the job done. _http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__ -- "That is precisely what common sense is for, to be jarred into uncommon sense." ++ Eric Temple Bell, Mathmatics: Queen of the Sciences Mark Ferrell: Major'Trips' Lead Programmer : Chaotic Dreams Development Team URL : http://www.planetquake.com/chaotic E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
