raid tools problem
Hi, I upgraded my kernel from 2.0.32 to 2.2.14 and using raidtools-0.90. I don't know why I can't initialize the raid disk siucessfully. Could you please let me know what's the problem? Besides, is there any documents for troubleshooting of the raidtools? Thanks [root@web /etc]# /sbin/mkraid /dev/md0 handling MD device /dev/md0 analyzing super-block disk 0: /dev/sda5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB /dev/sda5 is mounted mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues. == This is the raidtab file: raiddev /dev/md0 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda5 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb5 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md1 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda6 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb6 raid-disk 1 My partitions info: [root@web /etc]# df Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/sda1 497667 275056 196909 58% / /dev/sda515618577 39193 14766497 0% /home /dev/sda6 8940174904 842927 1% /var /dev/sdb1 497667 195936 276029 42% /backup /dev/sdb6 8940174253 843578 1% /var2 /dev/sdb5156185771907 14803783 0% /home2 Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: celeron vs k6-2
Hi It's most likely due to the current celerons having better memory bandwith than the K6-2's. The more data pr. time unit that can get through the memory system the more time will be spend by the CPU doing calculations instead of sitting idle waiting for data. This is one good reason for using an athlon with a good motherboard for serious software RAID machines. --- http://www.elof.dk -- Kristian Elof Soerensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+45) 45 93 92 02 On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Seth Vidal wrote: Hi folks, I did some tests comparing a k6-2 500 vs a celeron 400 - on a raid5 system - found some interesting results Raid5 write performance of the celeron is almost 50% better than the k6-2. Is this b/c of mmx (as james manning suggested) or b/c of the FPU? I used tiobench in sizes of than 3X my memory size on both systems - memory and drives of both systems were identical. Thanks -sv
Re: raid tools problem
Make sure /dev/sda5 and /dev/sdb5 are not mounted when "/sbin/mkraid /dev/md0" is issued. --- Matthew Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I upgraded my kernel from 2.0.32 to 2.2.14 and using raidtools-0.90. I don't know why I can't initialize the raid disk siucessfully. Could you please let me know what's the problem? Besides, is there any documents for troubleshooting of the raidtools? Thanks [root@web /etc]# /sbin/mkraid /dev/md0 handling MD device /dev/md0 analyzing super-block disk 0: /dev/sda5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB /dev/sda5 is mounted Unmounted /dev/sda5. mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues. == This is the raidtab file: raiddev /dev/md0 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda5 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb5 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md1 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda6 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb6 raid-disk 1 My partitions info: [root@web /etc]# df Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/sda1 497667 275056 196909 58% / /dev/sda515618577 39193 14766497 0% /home /dev/sda6 8940174904 842927 1% /var /dev/sdb1 497667 195936 276029 42% /backup /dev/sdb6 8940174253 843578 1% /var2 /dev/sdb5156185771907 14803783 0% /home2 Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com
Re: raid tools problem
I have the same problem with the same /etc/raidtab file. My kernel version is 2.2.13 The array Raid1 partitions are unmounted, but mkraid fails. i'm looking for a solution. If i change the raid level to 0, no problem. But i need level 1. If i find a solution i will tell you. I'm working on it. Saludos de Daniel desde La Aldea. El Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jason Lin escribió: Make sure /dev/sda5 and /dev/sdb5 are not mounted when "/sbin/mkraid /dev/md0" is issued. --- Matthew Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I upgraded my kernel from 2.0.32 to 2.2.14 and using raidtools-0.90. I don't know why I can't initialize the raid disk siucessfully. Could you please let me know what's the problem? Besides, is there any documents for troubleshooting of the raidtools? Thanks [root@web /etc]# /sbin/mkraid /dev/md0 handling MD device /dev/md0 analyzing super-block disk 0: /dev/sda5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB /dev/sda5 is mounted Unmounted /dev/sda5. mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues. == This is the raidtab file: raiddev /dev/md0 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda5 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb5 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md1 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda6 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb6 raid-disk 1 My partitions info: [root@web /etc]# df Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/sda1 497667 275056 196909 58% / /dev/sda515618577 39193 14766497 0% /home /dev/sda6 8940174904 842927 1% /var /dev/sdb1 497667 195936 276029 42% /backup /dev/sdb6 8940174253 843578 1% /var2 /dev/sdb5156185771907 14803783 0% /home2 Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com
Failed disk - how will it reboot?
Hi, on a server one disk had a "medium error" and the RAID1 (2.2.14-B1) disabled one of the mirrors. It looks like this: md0 : active raid1 sdb5[1] sda5[0](F) 4739072 blocks [2/1] [_U] If I reboot now, how will the system react? Will it recognize the failed partition or (worst case) will it try to overwrite the data on sdb5 with sda5? BTW, what's the easiest way to replace the failed disk? Will something like "dd /dev/sda /dev/sdb count=1" and "raidhotadd /dev/md0 /dev/sdb5" work? (assuming the old sdb becomes sda after the replacement) Thanks, Jochen -- # mgm ComputerSysteme und -Service GmbH # Sophienstr. 26 / 70178 Stuttgart / Germany / Voice: +49.711.96683-5 The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it. --John Perry Barlow
Re: Failed disk - how will it reboot?
on a server one disk had a "medium error" and the RAID1 (2.2.14-B1) disabled one of the mirrors. It looks like this: md0 : active raid1 sdb5[1] sda5[0](F) 4739072 blocks [2/1] [_U] We go a JBoD with 24 disks, and about a quarter of them have failed in just such a way If I reboot now, how will the system react? It will start in degraded mode using sdb5 only (assuming you have PSB !!) Will it recognize the failed partition So long as the good partition is accessible and you are using PSBs, it will read the configuration info and find that it is just sdb5. or (worst case) will it try to overwrite the data on sdb5 with sda5? So long as youy are using PSBs, this should not happen. sdb5 will have a later event count. BTW, what's the easiest way to replace the failed disk? Will something like "dd /dev/sda /dev/sdb count=1" Yikes !!! this sounds hairy ! No blocksize ... If the new sdb is identical to sda, it will set up the primary partitions and the extended partitions, but it will not set up all the logical partitions. I'd do it by hand, but if you are *SURE* they are the same, use sfdisk ... and "raidhotadd /dev/md0 /dev/sdb5" work? Once the logical partition is set up, that should work. (assuming the old sdb becomes sda after the replacement) (it depends on the SCSI ID and the SCSI bus used. I assume you would replace sda with a new disk, and leave sdb ASIS, in which case it would remain sdb)
Re: Failed disk - how will it reboot?
Hi Jochen, At 10:46 25.04.00, Jochen Scharrlach wrote: on a server one disk had a "medium error" and the RAID1 (2.2.14-B1) disabled one of the mirrors. It looks like this: md0 : active raid1 sdb5[1] sda5[0](F) 4739072 blocks [2/1] [_U] If I reboot now, how will the system react? Will it recognize the failed partition or (worst case) will it try to overwrite the data on sdb5 with sda5? Not a problem; it will stay in degraded mode, it won't damage the good data on sdb. Is sda the disk you're booting the system from? if so: you sould have a bootdisk handy when replacing sda; you'll probably have a system thet doesn't want to boot off disk when plugging in a new sda (without playing arout with scsi IDs etc). BTW, what's the easiest way to replace the failed disk? Will something like "dd /dev/sda /dev/sdb count=1" and "raidhotadd /dev/md0 /dev/sdb5" work? (assuming the old sdb becomes sda after the replacement) You donÄt have to copy any data by hand. Install the new disk, partition and add the partition using raidhotadd. raid will do the synchronisation itself. I'd keep sdb as sdb and just put in a replacement for sda; however, you'll have to boot off a floppy if you do it this way. Bye, Martin "you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make this change take effect" -- Martin Bene vox: +43-316-813824 simon media fax: +43-316-813824-6 Andreas-Hofer-Platz 9 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8010 Graz, Austria -- finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
Re: Problems again
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Danilo Godec wrote: Well, the chassis is an Intel pre-installed rack mountable one with hot-swappable SCSI backplane. All the cables were there allready connected to disk racks. All I had to do was to install the disks in the racks and slide them in. I finally managed to get myself to the server location where I found out, that two big fans of the 19" rack enclosure failed (not only were they not spinning properly, they were VERY hot, acting more like a hairdryer than cooling fans). I removed them and so far, I have 9 days of up-time without a single scsi hickup. Of course, while being there I also replaced the scsi cable and installed a new LVD terminator (instead of using the backplane's on-board termination). The other thing I noticed was that the AIC7xxx chip on the motherboard has no cooling at all and it got quite worm even in the few minutes the machine was on the workbench, so I decided to stick a passive cooler on it when I get the next chance... Just for the sake of it. If this is a bad idea, I'd like to know before I do it... :) Thanks, D.
Re: raid tools problem
Dear Jason, Thanks for the quick reply. I've unmounted /dev/sda5, /dev/sdb5, /dev/sda6 and /dev/sdb6. However, this time I got another problem. Really no idea what's going on? Any hints? [root@web /etc]# /sbin/mkraid --really-force /dev/md0 DESTROYING the contents of /dev/md0 in 5 seconds, Ctrl-C if unsure! handling MD device /dev/md0 analyzing super-block disk 0: /dev/sda5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB disk 1: /dev/sdb5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues. == From: Jason Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: raid tools problem Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Make sure /dev/sda5 and /dev/sdb5 are not mounted when "/sbin/mkraid /dev/md0" is issued. --- Matthew Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I upgraded my kernel from 2.0.32 to 2.2.14 and using raidtools-0.90. I don't know why I can't initialize the raid disk siucessfully. Could you please let me know what's the problem? Besides, is there any documents for troubleshooting of the raidtools? Thanks [root@web /etc]# /sbin/mkraid /dev/md0 handling MD device /dev/md0 analyzing super-block disk 0: /dev/sda5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB /dev/sda5 is mounted Unmounted /dev/sda5. mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues. == This is the raidtab file: raiddev /dev/md0 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda5 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb5 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md1 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 device /dev/sda6 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb6 raid-disk 1 My partitions info: [root@web /etc]# df Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/sda1 497667 275056 196909 58% / /dev/sda515618577 39193 14766497 0% /home /dev/sda6 8940174904 842927 1% /var /dev/sdb1 497667 195936 276029 42% /backup /dev/sdb6 8940174253 843578 1% /var2 /dev/sdb5156185771907 14803783 0% /home2 Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: fsck'ing RAID's
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 10:24:20PM +0200, Jakob Østergaard wrote: Resync shouldn't change what is read from the array, as it only rebuilds the parity -- the redunant information -- and doesn't affect the ``real'' data. It depends on which RAID level and which disk fail. In this case (RAID5), you're going to have to rebuild both parity *AND* data (this isn't RAID [2-4]...) While the fsck should see the same information whether or not a resync needs to occur, it's going to be *much* slower to fsck during a resync than after the resync is completed. (not to mention that the fsck will have to recreate the data to check -- hopefully the rebuild process will use this so it doesn't have to recreate the data twice.) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Capital punishment turns the state into a murderer. But imprisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon-master." - Emo Philips
Re: raid tools problem
"Matthew Leung" writes: Dear Jason, Thanks for the quick reply. I've unmounted /dev/sda5, /dev/sdb5, /dev/sda6 and /dev/sdb6. However, this time I got another problem. Really no idea what's going on? Any hints? [root@web /etc]# /sbin/mkraid --really-force /dev/md0 DESTROYING the contents of /dev/md0 in 5 seconds, Ctrl-C if unsure! handling MD device /dev/md0 analyzing super-block disk 0: /dev/sda5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB disk 1: /dev/sdb5, 16257748kB, raid superblock at 16257664kB mkraid: aborted, see the syslog and /proc/mdstat for potential clues. Install the 2.2.14 kernel raid patch found at: http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/
My benchmarks
I have an Intel P-III running at 450 MHz on an Intel SE440BX-2 motherboard with patched 2.2.14 kernel raidtools 0.90 RAID-5 array consists of 3 "Maxtor 51536U3" drives. One drive is master on secondary motherboard IDE port. (no slave) The other 2 are alone on the primary and secondary of a Promise Ultra ATA/66. The raid is configured as follows: [root@porgy /proc]# cat mdstat Personalities : [raid5] read_ahead 1024 sectors md0 : active raid5 hdg1[1] hde1[0] hdc1[2] 10005120 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 0 [3/3] [UUU] md1 : active raid5 hdg5[2] hde5[1] hdc5[0] 10005120 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 0 [3/3] [UUU] md2 : active raid5 hdg6[2] hde6[1] hdc6[0] 10004096 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 0 [3/3] [UUU] unused devices: none [root@porgy /proc]# The following test was run on /dev/md2 mounted as /usr1 [degan@porgy tiobench-0.29]$ ./tiobench.pl --block 4096 No size specified, using 510 MB Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec File Block Num Seq ReadRand Read Seq Write Rand Write DirSize Size Thr Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- . 51040961 21.63 10.4% 0.757 0.87% 19.62 17.1% 0.799 2.45% . 51040962 22.89 12.0% 0.938 0.90% 20.18 17.7% 0.792 2.38% . 51040964 21.85 12.5% 1.113 1.09% 20.37 18.1% 0.784 2.19% . 51040968 20.57 13.1% 1.252 1.34% 20.54 18.5% 0.776 2.34% I am not sure what to make of the results and am happy with my RAID operation. I only post them FYI. +-+ | Douglas EganWind River | | | | Tel : 847-837-1530| | Fax : 847-949-1368| | HTTP : http://www.windriver.com| | Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +-+
stability of 0.90
I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to recover with the current code!). How stable is 0.90? Under people.redhat.com/mingo, the file is labeled "dangerous". But I can't use the 2.2.11 code under kernel.org 'cause 2.2.11 has that nasty little TCP memory leak bug Thanks in advance, Brian Jonnes Init Systems - Linux consulting (031) 765-5269 (082) 555-7737 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: performance limitations of linux raid
bug1 wrote: Clay Claiborne wrote: For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system. Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to about 43MB/sec. The system is a 600Mhz P-3 on a ASUS P3C2000 with 256MB of ram, the raid drives are 40GB Maxtor DMA66, 7200 RPM, and each is run as master on its own channel. Turning on DMA seems to be the key. Benchmarking the individual drives with HDBENCH we got numbers like 2.57MB/sec read and 3.27MB/sec write with DMA off and it jumped up to 24.7MB/sec read and 24.2MB/sec write with it on. That, and enough processing power to see that paritity calc is not a bottleneck. Can you use your raid system with DMA turned on or do you get irq timouts like me ? gonna jump on the bandwagon here...:-) How often do you get them?? On all the disks, or just some of them. In all the modes or just with ultra66??? i get some every couple of days, normally resulting in the dma getting disabled for the specific drive...:-( but the filesystems seem to be ok... remo
RE: stability of 0.90
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 10:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: stability of 0.90 I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to recover with the current code!). How stable is 0.90? Under I've had no trouble with it, running a strip set (RAID 0) for about 4 months now. people.redhat.com/mingo, the file is labeled "dangerous". But I can't use the 2.2.11 code under kernel.org 'cause 2.2.11 has that nasty little TCP memory leak bug All the RAID code is "dangerous" even the old 0.40 stuff. The 2.2.11 patch works all the way up to 2.2.13, for 2.2.14 you need Ingo's patch from the above site. RAIDtools-0.90 is the version you want. Greg
PowerEdge 2450
Dear all, I think this message should be off-topic. But I really can't find any resource in Internet about installing RH6.2 Linux in a Dell PowerEdge 2450 2U server with Hardware RAID Enabled (PERC 3/Si). First the Dell server can detect 4 SCSI HD in the RAID controller. Howerver, the aic-7899 can't detect the RAID (logical drive) during system doing POST. Of course, I can't even make the system detect the PERC controller when installing RH 6.2 even I have use the expert mode and insert the driver for the controller. Sorry for off-topic.. But I really can't find anywhere to ask for help!... Thanks all of you! Chris
Re: stability of 0.90
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a
year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having
a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to
recover with the current code!). How stable is 0.90?
``very''.
It's more stable than the old code ever was. I'm surprised you even succeeded
running the old code with a raid level that has redundancy, I could never
make that work under heavy load.
The 0.90 code is in use a lot of places. I have 7-8 systems or so running with
various levels (all but RAID-4 actually), and it's rock solid.
Under
people.redhat.com/mingo, the file is labeled "dangerous". But I can't use
the 2.2.11 code under kernel.org 'cause 2.2.11 has that nasty little TCP
memory leak bug
Stay away from the ``dangerous'' code.
Use Ingo's patch for 2.2.14 at the URL you mentioned. It works with 2.2.14 and
2.2.15(pre-something).
2.2.15pre-X and the 2.2.14 RAID patch is a nice couple. Look out for
rejects when you patch. You will most likely have to fix one small reject
in raid1.c, but it shouldn't be much of a problem I guess.
--
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : And I see the elder races, :
:.: putrid forms of man:
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
:OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.:{Konkhra}...:
Re: celeron vs k6-2
[Seth Vidal] I did some tests comparing a k6-2 500 vs a celeron 400 - on a raid5 system - found some interesting results Raid5 write performance of the celeron is almost 50% better than the k6-2. Can you report the xor calibration results when booting them? Is this b/c of mmx or b/c of the FPU? FPU should never get involved (except the FPU registers getting used during MMX operations). As per Greg's report of the K6-2 having MMX instructions, remember that a chip having instructions doesn't mean they get used. Again, this is something that the xor calibrations should help show, though. MTRR could certainly be another source of additional performance, but I haven't dealt with the K6-2 in any capacity so I don't even know whether it has that capability (although I haven't personally heard of anything not based on the P6 core using MTRR) I used tiobench in sizes of than 3X my memory size on both systems - memory and drives of both systems were identical. If possible, let the resync's finish before testing... this can cause a huge amount of variance (that I've seen in my testing). speed-limit down to 0 doesn't appear to help, either (although the additional seeks to get back to the "data" area from the currently resyncing stripes could be the base cause) When looking from a certain realistic POV, it'd be hard to believe that even a P5 couldn't keep up with the necessary XOR operations... is there anything else on the system(s) fighting for CPU time? James
Re: celeron vs k6-2
Raid5 write performance of the celeron is almost 50% better than the k6-2. Can you report the xor calibration results when booting them? sure I should be able to pull that out of somewhere from the k6-2: raid5: MMX detected, trying high-speed MMX checksum routines pII_mmx : 1121.664 MB/sec p5_mmx: 1059.561 MB/sec 8regs : 718.185 MB/sec 32regs: 501.777 MB/sec using fastest function: pII_mmx (1121.664 MB/sec) If possible, let the resync's finish before testing... this can cause a huge amount of variance (that I've seen in my testing). speed-limit down to 0 doesn't appear to help, either (although the additional seeks to get back to the "data" area from the currently resyncing stripes could be the base cause) I did both tests just about identically. When looking from a certain realistic POV, it'd be hard to believe that even a P5 couldn't keep up with the necessary XOR operations... is there anything else on the system(s) fighting for CPU time? no. they were blanked - i didn't put them into runlevel 1 but I did shut down everything I could. they were pretty low load. -sv
Re: stability of 0.90
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to recover with the current code!). How stable is 0.90? ``very''. It's more stable than the old code ever was. I'm surprised you even succeeded running the old code with a raid level that has redundancy, I could never make that work under heavy load. You did not try hard enough. I've run 0.42 on both IDE and scsi root raid5 since it was first available. I still have one customer that has been running 12 gig 3 - disk root raid5 ide system with 0.42 tools on a 2.0x kernel for a couple of years in a graphics service bureau as a file server. i.e. -- lots of big files, lots of traffic. Theyve had a hard disk failure -- survived! -- and numerous stupid shut downs without dismount of raid (they just turned off the power), but the system has ups+fail detect and has successfully run for a long time with power outages, restarts, etc... Never lost any data. Slackware ~3.x low number. Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: celeron vs k6-2
early stepping K6-2s did not have an MTRR. later steppings do (i believe stepping 8 was the first one to have an MTRR... but i can't say for certain): my cpu: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 5 model : 8 model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 300.689223 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mmx 3dnow bogomips: 599.65 this guy's http://www.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999week21/0052.html cpu: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 5 model : 8 model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor stepping : 12 cpu MHz : 350.810582 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mmx 3dnow bogomips : 699.60 James Manning wrote: MTRR could certainly be another source of additional performance, but I haven't dealt with the K6-2 in any capacity so I don't even know whether it has that capability (although I haven't personally heard of anything not based on the P6 core using MTRR.
Re: performance limitations of linux raid
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Frank Joerdens wrote: I've been toying with the idea of getting one of those for a while, but there doesn't seem to be a linux driver for the FastTrack66 (the RAID card), only for the Ultra66 (the not-hacked IDE controller), and that driver has only 'Experimental' status with current production kernels: Clue: the Promise IDE RAID controller is NOT a hardware RAID controller. Promise IDE RAID == Software RAID where the software is written by Promise and sitting on the ROM on the Promise card getting called by the BIOS. I even wrote to Promise to ask when or if a linux driver might become available, but didn't get much of an answer (they replied that there was a driver available for the Ultra, although I had specifically asked for the RAID card). Dont bother... A driver for Promise RAID == Software RAID. You already ahve software RAID in linux If anyone hears about a Linux driver for this card, I'd like to know. Cheers, Frank -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt --- Fortune: I use not only all the brains I have, but all those I can borrow as well. -- Woodrow Wilson
Re: celeron vs k6-2
early stepping K6-2s did not have an MTRR. later steppings do (i believe stepping 8 was the first one to have an MTRR... but i can't say for certain): my cpu: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 5 model : 8 model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 300.689223 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mmx 3dnow bogomips: 599.65 important flags from my cpu: flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mmx 3dnow interesting. mtrr is there so maybe its motherboard quality. -sv
Re: performance limitations of linux raid
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: Clue: the Promise IDE RAID controller is NOT a hardware RAID controller. Promise IDE RAID == Software RAID where the software is written by Promise and sitting on the ROM on the Promise card getting called by the BIOS. Clue: this is the way every RAID controller I know of works these days. PS: Linux doesn't use BIOS to access devices.
RE: performance limitations of linux raid
-Original Message- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 3:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: Clue: the Promise IDE RAID controller is NOT a hardware RAID controller. Promise IDE RAID == Software RAID where the software is written by Promise and sitting on the ROM on the Promise card getting called by the BIOS. Clue: this is the way every RAID controller I know of works these days. Then you've never used a RAID card. I've got a number of RAID cards here, 2 from compaq, 1 from DPT, and another from HP (really AMI), and all of them implement RAID functions like striping, double writes (mirroring), and parity calculations for RAID4/5 in firmware, using an onboard CPU. All the controllers here are i960 based, but I've heard that the StrongARM procs are much faster at parity caclculations. The controllers that I've used that are software are the Adaptec AAA series boards. The other one that I know of is this Promise thing. Greg
Re: performance limitations of linux raid
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 09:13:20PM -0400, Scott M. Ransom wrote: Then I moved back to kernel 2.2.15-pre18 with the RAID and IDE patches and here are my results: RAID0 on Promise Card 2.2.15-pre18 (1200MB test) -- ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 6833 99.2 42532 44.4 18397 42.2 7227 98.3 47754 33.0 182.8 1.5 ** When doing _actual_ work (I/O bound reads on huge data sets), I often see sustained read performance as high as 50MB/s. Tests on the individual drives show 28+ MB/s. What stripe size, CPU and memory is used here? I have a similar setup (2.2.15pre19, IDE+RAID patches), 4 master IDE Deskstars, on board VIA and offboard Promise controllers, and K6-2/500 256M ram and see 22MB/s native but a max of 28 MB/s for all stripes. dd/hdparm -t on multiple drives simultaneously appears to show complete contention between the separate chains. hdparm -t /dev/hde 19.16 MB/sec ( hdparm -t /dev/hde ) ; (hdparm -t /dev/hdg ) 11.43 MB/sec 10.47 MB/sec With all four drives throughput per drive is less than 7MB/sec. With RAID0 across all four drives I get 28 MB/sec according to bonnie, vs 22 MB/sec on single drives. I had been attributing that to a singly-entrant IDE driver in 2.2, but your results make me think there's some other reason I don't see linear speedups. Is this a dual CPU system perhaps? Something unusual about the interrupt handling? UDMA33 vs. UDMA 66 (I'm using 40 conductor cables, perhaps I need the 80s)?
Re: performance limitations of linux raid
remo strotkamp wrote: bug1 wrote: Clay Claiborne wrote: For what its worth, we recently built an 8 ide drive 280GB raid5 system. Benchmarking with HDBENCH we got 35.7MB/sec read and 29.87MB/sec write. With DBENCH and 1 client we got 44.5 MB/sec with 3 clients it dropped down to about 43MB/sec. The system is a 600Mhz P-3 on a ASUS P3C2000 with 256MB of ram, the raid drives are 40GB Maxtor DMA66, 7200 RPM, and each is run as master on its own channel. Turning on DMA seems to be the key. Benchmarking the individual drives with HDBENCH we got numbers like 2.57MB/sec read and 3.27MB/sec write with DMA off and it jumped up to 24.7MB/sec read and 24.2MB/sec write with it on. That, and enough processing power to see that paritity calc is not a bottleneck. Can you use your raid system with DMA turned on or do you get irq timouts like me ? gonna jump on the bandwagon here...:-) How often do you get them?? On all the disks, or just some of them. In all the modes or just with ultra66??? i get some every couple of days, normally resulting in the dma getting disabled for the specific drive...:-( but the filesystems seem to be ok... remo Yea, i get them on my disks (Quantum XA and KX, both my IBM DPTA 372050), they usually start at the last ide channel and work backwards. In the last 24 hours ive been getting them when e2fsck runs after rebooting. Usual cause of rebooting is irq causeing lockup, or endlessly trying looping trying to get an irq. Im convinced its my hpt366 controller, ive mentioned my problem in a few channels, no luck yet. I used to think it was the raid code, but i get it with lvm as well, it happens more often from reading than writting via the HPT366, the more load placed on the controller the more likely it is to lockup, one drive by itself it just losses interrupts (sometimes it can recover), if use three or four channels, using both my onboard hpt366 and my pci card it locks up hard in a fraction of a second I want to try and work this problem out, im not a kernel hacker though. Anyone have any advice on how to get into kernel debugging, i know c, i dont know the kernel though. I know how to use ksymoops thats about it. Glenn
can't locate module block-major-22
Hi there: After my raid-1 is up and running I shutdown the machine and took out one hard disk.(the one without Linux installed.) Just to see how it behaves. During reboot it drops to single user mode due to RAID device error. "raidstart /dev/md0" modprobe: can't locate module block-major-22 /dev/md0: invalid argument Is this normal? I was hoping the raid-1 would run in degraded mode, using /dev/hda7 only(which has Linux installed). Thanks. J. cat /etc/raidtab # Config file for raid-1 device. raiddev/dev/md0 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 persistent-superblock 1 device /dev/hdc7 raid-disk 0 device /dev/hda7 raid-disk 1 raiddev/dev/md1 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks 0 chunk-size 4 persistent-superblock 1 __ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com
Re: performance limitations of linux raid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What stripe size, CPU and memory is used here? System is a dual-cpu PII 450Mhz with 256MB RAM. Disks are configured with chunk-size of 32kb (ext2 block-size is 4kb). Is this a dual CPU system perhaps? Something Yes. See above. unusual about the interrupt handling? UDMA33 vs. UDMA 66 (I'm using 40 conductor cables, perhaps I need the 80s)? I am using UDMA66. When testing against UDMA33, I found a 10-15% speed difference. To get that speed increase you must have the UDMA66 cables... Scott -- Scott M. Ransom Phone: (781) 320-9867 Address: 75 Sanderson Ave. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dedham, MA 02026 PGP Fingerprint: D2 0E D0 10 CD 95 06 DA EF 78 FE 2B CB 3A D3 53
Re: PowerEdge 2450
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Leung Yau Wai wrote: Dear all, I think this message should be off-topic. But I really can't find any resource in Internet about installing RH6.2 Linux in a Dell PowerEdge 2450 2U server with Hardware RAID Enabled (PERC 3/Si). I believe it was posted here a couple of days ago that DELL is providing a binary only driver for the PERC3 embedded controller for the 2400/2450 440/4450 series Poweredge servers. I have not seen this myself, but I would goto Dell's support section and do a listing for drivers by your system type - I just checked and see that there is a PERC3 driver for redhat6.2 there. First the Dell server can detect 4 SCSI HD in the RAID controller. Howerver, the aic-7899 can't detect the RAID (logical drive) during system doing POST. AFAIK, the aic-7899 should NOT see the logical drive, as it is controlled directly by the PERC3 raid controller. Of course, I can't even make the system detect the PERC controller when installing RH 6.2 even I have use the expert mode and insert the driver for the controller. You *are* using the driver from dell for the perc3? Chris
