Re: OK I'm stuck - resort to list-members.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Nick Kay wrote: >Hi All, > I've got a problem with my software raid-1 setup that >I hope one of you kind people can help with. I have a slackware7.0 >setup with an ide drive (for installation) and a pair of 9gig scsi drives >on an adaptec 2930 that will be used for the raid. >I can get the raid up by hand ok but I cannot get the system to boot >with raid entries in /etc/fstab - it errors saying >"Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read >while trying to open /dev/md5" >"Could this be a zero length partition?" > >But weirdly enough the first raid partition (/dev/md2, which >will be root) comes up fine. > >The disks were both partitioned to have type fd and autodetect >raid is set in the kernel with the raid module hardwired. Could you tell us what kernel version you're running... For starters it looks like the 2.4.0-test[1234] problem, where partitions in the extended partition isn't auto detected. There was a (really short) patch a couple of weeks ago that addressed that problem. The patch was supplied by ``Kenneth Johansson'' and the mail was called ``Re: Failure autodetecting raid0 partitions''. -- Morten Bøgeskov (email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In a world without fences, who NEEDS Gates?
Re: Newbie question
try: cd /usr/src/linux patch -p1 < raid-2.2.16-A0.txt > patchoutput.txt Does this help? Phil On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:14:49PM +0200, Art wrote: > Dear Raiders, [ "Raiders for the lost docs?" :'] > > > I'm a bit lost about how to proceed. I've got the 2.2.16 kernel and tried to > apply the patch > named 'raid-2.2.16-A0.txt' (from > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/) with the following command: > 'patch -b patchoutput.txt'. (I could not find a patch > for 2.2.13) > In the output file, patch tells me that it cannot find the files to patch. > I started this command from /usr/src where linux is a link to the sources >[...] -- Philip Edelbrock -- IS Manager -- Edge Design, Corvallis, OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.netroedge.com/~phil PGP F16: 01 D2 FD 01 B5 46 F4 F0 3A 8B 9D 7E 14 7F FB 7A
RAID-1 confusion and problems
Greetings and apologies from the get-go for bothering you! I'm working my way through implementing RAID-1 on my RH6.2 system and saw that your email gets referenced on the mkraid -f command. I'm following the latest Software-RAID HOWTO along with the instructions available from RedHat and have some questions (as well as some problems implementing this). Background: 2 P3-450MhZ w/ 512RAM, w/ 2 20GB IDE UDMA66 drives using latest version of RH6.2 w/ 2.2.14-5smp kernel First of many confusions: In establishing a RAID-1 system I'm not sure how to partition both drives. The partitions which I've put to use on /dev/hda are below in "Detail 1" all of type ext2, along with one 127MB partition for Linux swap. Do I set these up also on /dev/hdb with the same size and tag them "fd" or is there some other procedure that's necessary here? If this is clarified then the procedures are pretty straightforward ... mkraid -f /dev/md0 mkfs /dev/md0 mkdir /storage mount /dev/md0 /storage ... are fairly clear until we get to making this system bootable and I'll stick to getting my initial confusion(s) clarified and then deal with this. Max Pyziur BRAMA - Gateway Ukraine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brama.com/ ### Detail 1: [pyz@brama pyz]$ df -ka Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/hda123302 5384 16715 24% /boot /dev/hda2 1008052020 9568432 0% /opt /dev/hda3 6008756 6920 5696604 0% /var /dev/hda6 15554521147494 0% /tmp /dev/hda7 3028080433204 2441056 15% /usr /dev/hda8 155545 8076139439 5% /home /dev/hda9 124427 41022 76981 35% / none 0 0 0 - /dev/pts none 0 0 0 - /proc
Newbie question
Dear Raiders, I'm running Suse 6.3 with a 2.2.13 kernel. I'd want to use my scsi disks in a raid 5 with hot spares configuration. For this I follow the Howto from Jakob Østergaard v. 0.90.7 19th of January 2000 (http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/). I'm a bit lost about how to proceed. I've got the 2.2.16 kernel and tried to apply the patch named 'raid-2.2.16-A0.txt' (from http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/) with the following command: 'patch -b patchoutput.txt'. (I could not find a patch for 2.2.13) In the output file, patch tells me that it cannot find the files to patch. I started this command from /usr/src where linux is a link to the sources 2.2.16. Then the /usr/src directory gets cluttered with a lot of files that I can delete. What am I missing? Help and many thanks, Nick Art
Raid
Hi, we are using Red Hat Linux 6.2 on Intel based machines.we are having two 18 GB harddrives and we did Raid 1( Mirroring) during Installation.suppose if I remove one of the disk,machine is booting well without any problem.My doubt is if one of the harddisk fails then how to add the new hardisk in the RAID 1 and reconstruct the array. what are configuration files i have to edit and execute command in order to reconstruct array in the new hardisk. The following is the /etc/raidtab file raiddev/dev/md0 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 chunk-size 64k persistent-superblock 1 #nr-spare-disks 0 device /dev/sda1 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb1 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md1 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 chunk-size 64k persistent-superblock 1 #nr-spare-disks 0 device /dev/sda6 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb6 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md2 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 chunk-size 64k persistent-superblock 1 #nr-spare-disks 0 device /dev/sda7 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb7 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md3 raid-level 1 nr-raid-disks 2 chunk-size 64k persistent-superblock 1 #nr-spare-disks 0 device /dev/sda8 raid-disk 0 device /dev/sdb8 raid-disk 1 I created the same partition in new hardisk and i used dd command to copy the files from root and boot partition. dd if=/dev/sda6 of=/dev/sdb6 in order to copy data from the hardisk to new hardisk partition /dev/sdb6 After that i executed the command mkraid raidtab -f --only-superblock when i try to run command there is no superblock option in the command.The system is not booting from the new hardisk. I used raidtools-0.90-6. can you give me a solution for this problem?.if you have any query please contact me My ph : 510-670-1710 ext:1252 Thanks Dhinesh Alladvantage.com
Re: Is the raid1readbalance patch production ready?
On Jul 21, 10:57am, Malcolm Beattie wrote: } Subject: Is the raid1readbalance patch production ready? > Is the raid1readbalance-2.2.15-B2 patch (when applied against a > 2.2.16+linux-2.2.16-raid-B2 kernel) rock-solid and production > quality? Can I trust 750GB of users' email to it? Is it guaranteed > to behave the same during failure modes that the non-patched RAID > code does? Is anyone using it heavily in a production system? > (Not that I expect any other answer except maybe for a resounding > "probably" :-) Here's one probably :-) We are using the read-balancing patch as part of our standard patchset to 2.2.16. We are currently using it on about 20 production servers with varying degress of business. I haven't heard a twerp out of it including through the failure of one side of a mirror on a moderately busy file server. > --Malcolm }-- End of excerpt from Malcolm Beattie As always, Dr. G.W. Wettstein, Ph.D. Enjellic Systems Development, LLC. 4206 N. 19th Ave. Specializing in information infra-structure Fargo, ND 58102development. PH: 701-281-4950WWW: http://www.enjellic.com FAX: 701-281-3949 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "IMPORTANT: The entire physical universe, including this message, may one day collapse back into an infinitesimally small space. Should another universe subsequently re-emerge, the existence of this message in that universe cannot be guaranteed." -- Ryan Tucker
AW: 3Ware Escalade 5000 & 6000, opinions?
Hi, > So my question is this: are these thing reliable? I mean if I > pull the plug under several occasions, will the Escalade firmware > handle the partial writes to the stripes and mirrors, ie. will the > block device be always consistent? My reason to question this arises > from criticism voiced here earlier about the Escalade firmware. I > have once tried to contact 3Ware through a web form in their site > but no answer yet. > > The criticism mentioned above is from a message posted 2000-06-07 > by Martin > Bene. Here's the relevant quote: As far as I know, the bug is still present; it'll need a new firmware release (+ driver update) to fix. While a firmware update has been made available around end of june (newest firmware file June 14th) this does not seem to address the issue of loosing mirror consistency and possible data corruption in case of a dirty shutdown. >From the latest information on availability of a fix I had from 3ware, I'd expect a fix "real soon now (tm)" (this month) - however, a request for new information sent last week hasn't yet been answered. So, right now they reliable as long as you DON'T pull the plug while a write is in progress. 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
OK I'm stuck - resort to list-members.
Hi All, I've got a problem with my software raid-1 setup that I hope one of you kind people can help with. I have a slackware7.0 setup with an ide drive (for installation) and a pair of 9gig scsi drives on an adaptec 2930 that will be used for the raid. I can get the raid up by hand ok but I cannot get the system to boot with raid entries in /etc/fstab - it errors saying "Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read while trying to open /dev/md5" "Could this be a zero length partition?" But weirdly enough the first raid partition (/dev/md2, which will be root) comes up fine. The disks were both partitioned to have type fd and autodetect raid is set in the kernel with the raid module hardwired. Here's "raidtab", "fstab". raidtab: raiddev /dev/md2 raid-level1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks0 persistent-superblock 1 chunk-size4 device/dev/sda2 raid-disk 0 device/dev/sdb2 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md5 raid-level1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks0 persistent-superblock 1 chunk-size4 device/dev/sda5 raid-disk 0 device/dev/sdb5 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md6 raid-level1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks0 persistent-superblock 1 chunk-size4 device/dev/sda6 raid-disk 0 device/dev/sdb6 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md7 raid-level1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks0 persistent-superblock 1 chunk-size4 device/dev/sda7 raid-disk 0 device/dev/sdb7 raid-disk 1 raiddev /dev/md8 raid-level1 nr-raid-disks 2 nr-spare-disks0 persistent-superblock 1 chunk-size4 device/dev/sda8 raid-disk 0 device/dev/sdb8 raid-disk 1 fstab /dev/hda2 swapswapdefaults 0 0 /dev/hda1 /ext2defaults 1 1 /dev/hda3 /usrext2defaults 1 1 /dev/hda5 /varext2defaults 1 1 /dev/hda6 /tmpext2defaults 1 1 /dev/hda7 /usr/localext2defaults 1 1 /dev/hda8 /homeext2defaults 1 1 none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 none /procprocdefaults 0 0 /dev/md2/newrootext2defaults1 1 #/dev/sda1 /newroot/boot ext2defaults1 1 #/dev/md5 /newroot/varext2defaults1 1 #/dev/md6 /newroot/usrext2defaults1 1 #/dev/md7 /newroot/usr/local ext2defaults1 1 #/dev/md8 /newroot/home ext2defaults1 1 (This boots fine - uncommenting any of the other raid partitions breaks it ) Thanks for any input - all help appreciated. ttfn nick
Re: raid5 failure
> Hey Seth, > > Sorry to hear about your drive failures. To me, this is something that > most people ignore about RAID5: Lose more than one drive and everything is > toast. Good reason to have a drive setup as a hot spare, not to mention an > extra drive laying on the shelf. And hold your breathe while the array is > rebuilding. > it actually will probably be ok in the long run. we had GOOD backups. it took us less than 6hours to bring the whole thing backup (including rebuilding the machine, restoring from tape and eating dinner) so I feel good about our ability to recover from a disaster. and I'm not afraid of the WORST anymore with raid5. the logs screamed holy hell so I knew what was RIGHT away. so all in all I'm glad we're through it. though a hot spare is in the plans for the next iteration of this array :) -sv
Re: raid5 failure
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Seth Vidal wrote: > Hi, > We've been using the sw raid 5 support in linux for about 2-3 months now. > We've had good luck with it. > > Until this week. > > In this one week we've lost two drives on a 3 drive array. Completely > eliminating the array. We have good backups, made everynight, so the data > is safe. The problem is this: What could have caused these dual drive > failures? > > One went out on saturday the next on the following friday. Complete death. > > One drive won't detect anywhere anymore and its been RMA'd the other > detects and I'm currently mke2fs -c on the drive. Hey Seth, Sorry to hear about your drive failures. To me, this is something that most people ignore about RAID5: Lose more than one drive and everything is toast. Good reason to have a drive setup as a hot spare, not to mention an extra drive laying on the shelf. And hold your breathe while the array is rebuilding. Bill Carlson Systems Programmer[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Opinions are mine, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/| not my employer's. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics|
Re: Performance gap between 2.2.14 and 2.4.0-test4 kernels
This is interesting, i thought it was only IDE that didnt scale well in 2.[34], looks like the problem is more generic than that. I cc'ed this to linux-raid. Glenn > Gianluca Cecchi wrote: > > > The system: > > MB: Supermicro P6SBU (Adaptec 7890 on board) > CPU: 1 pentium III 500 MHz > Mem: 256Mb > > 1x9.1Gb IBM DNES-309170W disk on fast/se channel > 4x18.2Gb IBM DNES-318350W on ultra2 channel > The 18.2 Gb disks are in raid0 software. Below the /etc/raidtab file: > > raiddev /dev/md0 > raid-level 0 > nr-raid-disks 4 > persistent-superblock 1 > chunk-size 128 > device /dev/sdb1 > raid-disk 0 > device /dev/sdc1 > raid-disk 1 > device /dev/sdd1 > raid-disk 2 > device /dev/sde1 > raid-disk 3 > > output of dmesg related to scsi conf (in 2.4.0-test4 boot): > > md.c: sizeof(mdp_super_t) = 4096 > (scsi0) found at PCI > 0/14/0 > (scsi0) Wide Channel, SCSI ID=7, 32/255 SCBs > (scsi0) Downloading sequencer code... 392 instructions downloaded > scsi0 : Adaptec AHA274x/284x/294x (EISA/VLB/PCI-Fast SCSI) 5.2.1/5.2.0 > > scsi : 1 host. > (scsi0:0:5:0) Synchronous at 10.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 15. > Vendor: SONY Model: SDT-9000 Rev: 0400 > Type: Sequential-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 > (scsi0:0:6:0) Synchronous at 40.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 31. > Vendor: IBM Model: DNES-309170W Rev: SA30 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03 > Detected scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 6, lun 0 > (scsi0:0:8:0) Synchronous at 80.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 31. > Vendor: IBM Model: DNES-318350W Rev: SA30 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03 > Detected scsi disk sdb at scsi0, channel 0, id 8, lun 0 > (scsi0:0:9:0) Synchronous at 80.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 31. > Vendor: IBM Model: DNES-318350W Rev: SA30 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03 > Detected scsi disk sdc at scsi0, channel 0, id 9, lun 0 > (scsi0:0:10:0) Synchronous at 80.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 31. > Vendor: IBM Model: DNES-318350W Rev: SA30 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: > 03 > Detected scsi disk sdd at scsi0, channel 0, id 10, lun 0 > (scsi0:0:12:0) Synchronous at 80.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 31. > Vendor: IBM Model: DNES-318350W Rev: SA30 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03 > Detected scsi disk sde at scsi0, channel 0, id 12, lun 0 > scsi : detected 5 SCSI disks total. > SCSI device sda: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 17916240 [8748 MB] > [8.7 GB] > Partition check: > sda: sda1 sda2 < sda5 sda6 sda7 > > SCSI device sdb: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 35843670 [17501 MB] > [17.5 GB] > sdb: sdb1 > SCSI device sdc: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 35843670 [17501 MB] > [17.5 GB] > sdc: sdc1 > SCSI device sdd: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 35843670 [17501 MB] > [17.5 GB] > sdd: sdd1 > SCSI device sde: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 35843670 [17501 MB] > [17.5 GB] > sde: > sde1 > > [snipped] > > (read) sdb1's sb offset: 17920384 [events: 0085] > (read) sdc1's sb offset: 17920384 [events: 0085] > (read) sdd1's sb offset: 17920384 [events: 0085] > (read) sde1's sb offset: 17920384 [events: 0085] > autorun ... > considering sde1 ... > adding sde1 ... > adding sdd1 ... > adding sdc1 ... > adding sdb1 ... > created md0 > bind > bind > bind > bind > running: > now! > sde1's event counter: 0085 > sdd1's event counter: 0085 > sdc1's event counter: 0085 > sdb1's event counter: 0085 > raid0 personality registered > md0: max total readahead window set to 2048k > md0: 4 data-disks, max readahead per data-disk: 512k > raid0: looking at sdb1 > raid0: comparing sdb1(17920384) with sdb1(17920384) > raid0: END > raid0: ==> UNIQUE > raid0: 1 zones > raid0: looking at sdc1 > raid0: comparing sdc1(17920384) with sdb1(17920384) > raid0: EQUAL > raid0: looking at sdd1 > raid0: comparing sdd1(17920384) with sdb1(17920384) > raid0: EQUAL > raid0: looking at sde1 > raid0: comparing sde1(17920384) with sdb1(17920384) > raid0: EQUAL > raid0: FINAL 1 zones > zone 0 > checking sdb1 ... contained as device 0 > (17920384) is smallest!. > checking sdc1 ... contained as device 1 > checking sdd1 ... contained as device 2 > checking sde1 ... contained as device 3 > zone->nb_dev: 4, size: 71681536 > current zone offset: 17920384 > done. > raid0 : md_size is 71681536 blocks. > raid0 : conf->smallest->size is 71681536 blocks. > raid0 : nb_zone is 1. > raid0 : Allocating 8 bytes for hash. > md: updating md0 RAID superblock on device > sde1 [events: 0086](write) sde1's sb offset: 17920384 > sdd1 [events: 0086](write) sdd1's sb offset: 17920384 > sdc1 [events: 0086](write) sdc1's sb
