Hello.
On my desktop I use Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 soft raid controller. RAID5
is configured over 3 disks. FreeBSD 8.2 sees this as:
ar0: 953874MB Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 (stripe 64 KB) status: READY
ar0: disk0 READY using ad4 at ata2-master
ar0: disk1 READY using ad6 at ata3-master
ar0: disk2
use Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 soft raid controller. RAID5 is
configured over 3 disks. FreeBSD 8.2 sees this as:
ar0: 953874MB Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 (stripe 64 KB) status: READY
ar0: disk0 READY using ad4 at ata2-master
ar0: disk1 READY using ad6 at ata3-master
ar0: disk2 READY using ad12 at ata6
is implemented with cam. I remember a post a while
back about this issue to happen with defaulting cam in 9. Did not follow it
so not sure if something has been done about it.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Alexander Pyhalov a...@rsu.ru wrote:
Hello.
On my desktop I use Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 soft
On 17.01.2012 12:53, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
On my desktop I use Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 soft raid controller. RAID5
is configured over 3 disks. FreeBSD 8.2 sees this as:
ar0: 953874MB Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 (stripe 64 KB) status: READY
ar0: disk0 READY using ad4 at ata2-master
ar0: disk1 READY
about this issue to happen with defaulting cam in 9. Did not follow it
so not sure if something has been done about it.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Alexander Pyhalova...@rsu.ru wrote:
Hello.
On my desktop I use Intel MatrixRAID RAID5 soft raid controller. RAID5 is
configured over 3 disks
On 1/17/2012 4:04 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 17.01.2012 19:03, Vinny Abello wrote:
I had something similar on a software based RAID controller on my Intel
S5000PSL motherboard when I just went from 8.2-RELEASE to 9.0-RELEASE. After
adding geom_raid_load=YES to my /boot/loader.conf, it
On 17.01.2012 23:35, Vinny Abello wrote:
On 1/17/2012 4:04 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 17.01.2012 19:03, Vinny Abello wrote:
I had something similar on a software based RAID controller on my Intel S5000PSL
motherboard when I just went from 8.2-RELEASE to 9.0-RELEASE. After adding
On 1/17/2012 4:38 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 17.01.2012 23:35, Vinny Abello wrote:
On 1/17/2012 4:04 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 17.01.2012 19:03, Vinny Abello wrote:
I had something similar on a software based RAID controller on my Intel
S5000PSL motherboard when I just went from
First we create a pool name www:
zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
Then replace da6 with a new disk.
when reboot the box,panic when booting:
ZFS:vdev failure,zpool=ww type=vdev.bad_label
painc:solaris
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:33:44PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
First we create a pool name www:
zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
Um, this isn't a RAID - this is a simple concatination of disks. I think
what you meant to do was:
zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
Otherwise, you'll
YES.
zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
should be:
zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
sorry for my mistake.
I redo it again.
All things go damn WELL.
I can't tell what's wrong now.
2008/10/22 Rink Springer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:33:44PM +0800, lhmwzy
I think I have found the problem.
I want to do zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6,but make
a mistake,type zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6.
Then I remove one disk.
Then reboot,there is a panic.
I know this is my misktake.But should FreeBSD panic or FreeBSD go well
but zpool
I think I have found the problem.
I want to do zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6,but make
a mistake,type zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6.
Then I remove one disk.Shutdown system and add a new disk.
The two disks have an identical size.
Then reboot,there is a panic.
I know
One thing:must copy some data to the pool,remove one disk,shutdown,add
a new disk,start the box,get the panic.
My box uname -a:
FreeBSD freebsd.lpcy.com 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Tue
Oct 21 12:02:30 CST 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/lhmwzy amd64
Miroslav Lachman a écrit :
Arnaud Houdelette wrote:
[...]
Geom_raid5 is (unfortunatly ?) not part of Freebsd base.
You'll have to download and install the module and utility binaries
and follow the (simple) instructions from this website :
http://home.tiscali.de/cmdr_faako/graid5-howto.html
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Do you have any stability issues after tuning? What settings you are
using?
I am testing ZFS for a short time with these values:
vm.kmem_size=1024M
vm.kmem_size_max=1024M
vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable=1
kern.maxvnodes=40
vfs.zfs.zil_disable=1
(on Sun Fire X2100 with
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 01:04:20PM -0700, Steven Schlansker wrote:
I'm also running ZFS and wanted to share my experiences. It doesn't
cope well with low-memory environments, but I've successfully run with
2GB ram and 3TB disk with no problems on both i386 and amd64. amd64
needs a little bit
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Arnaud Houdelette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lev Serebryakov a écrit :
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos
Arnaud Houdelette wrote:
[...]
Geom_raid5 is (unfortunatly ?) not part of Freebsd base.
You'll have to download and install the module and utility binaries and
follow the (simple) instructions from this website :
http://home.tiscali.de/cmdr_faako/graid5-howto.html
In the meantime, somebody
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Arnaud Houdelette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lev Serebryakov a écrit :
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos, multi-layer
PhotoShop
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Arnaud Houdelette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lev Serebryakov a écrit :
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
(4) FreeBSD 7 + ZFS zraid. And again: stability. Too many messages
about locks, crashes, etc. Code is experemental. Is it only for
32 bit systems?
Recently I installed a new server in my local network.
[media butcher]# uname -rsm
FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT amd64
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Lev Serebryakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos, multi-layer
PhotoShop files and FLAC-encoded music consume
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos, multi-layer
PhotoShop files and FLAC-encoded music consume a lot of space, and
they should be availible both from desktop notebook
Lev Serebryakov a écrit :
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos, multi-layer
PhotoShop files and FLAC-encoded music consume a lot of space, and
they should be availible
Arnaud Houdelette wrote:
Lev Serebryakov a écrit :
Hello, freebsd-stable.
Does somebody use some software RAID5 on FreeBSD in real production
system?
I want to build storage server for my home: RAW photos, multi-layer
PhotoShop files and FLAC-encoded music consume a lot of space
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
...
I've been using FreeNAS (http://www.freenas.org) for personal use as
well as a couple of places at work.
Do you use it in RAID5 configuration (which is geom_raid5 - based)?
I'm using it in both gmirror and graid5 configurations.
--
Louis Kowolowski
Hello, Louis.
You wrote 9 ?? 2008 ?., 21:26:09:
I've been using FreeNAS (http://www.freenas.org) for personal use as
well as a couple of places at work.
Do you use it in RAID5 configuration (which is geom_raid5 - based)?
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov [EMAIL PROTECTED
i've seen RAID 0 through 3 (skip 2 ;) )
thanks,
matheus
--
We will call you cygnus,
The God of balance you shall be
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
ZFS has RAIDZ - very similar to RAID5 (with added features), if you
don't mind ZFS's current experimental state.
-Joe
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
i've seen RAID 0 through 3 (skip 2 ;) )
thanks,
matheus
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 07:51:32 pm Joe Peterson wrote:
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
i've seen RAID 0 through 3 (skip 2 ;) )
thanks,
ZFS has RAIDZ - very similar to RAID5 (with added features), if you
don't mind ZFS's current experimental state.
gvinum supports RAID5, but is a bit more
On Sunday 20 January 2008 01:53:30 pm David Wood wrote:
Hi there,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik
Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 04:48:56PM +, David Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aldas Nabazas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
We bought a new Dell
On Jan 23, 2008 2:19 PM, John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008 01:53:30 pm David Wood wrote:
Hi there,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik
Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 04:48:56PM +, David Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL
before 7.0 final? We are going to try
different RAID combinations but it definitely not working using 6x146GB as
RAID5.
Maybe someone could share the RAID combinations they successfully are
running on?
Thanks in advance.
Kind Regards,
Aldas
___
freebsd
I just wonder what the status of mfi driver? Maybe it's not fully tested or
there will be some important fixes before 7.0 final? We are going to try
different RAID combinations but it definitely not working using 6x146GB as
RAID5.
This is extremely disappointing to read, as I was relatively close
as
RAID5.
I do not know if the mfi(4) driver has any problems with large disks, but it
is however well known that fdisk(8) and bsdlabel(8) (the tools normally used
to partition disks) have problems with volumes larger than 2TB.
If you want to use volumes larger than 2TB then gpt(8
using 6x146GB as
RAID5.
I do not know if the mfi(4) driver has any problems with large disks, but it
is however well known that fdisk(8) and bsdlabel(8) (the tools normally used
to partition disks) have problems with volumes larger than 2TB.
If you want to use volumes larger than 2TB then gpt(8
Hi there,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik
Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 04:48:56PM +, David Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aldas Nabazas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
We bought a new Dell PowerEdge 2950III with Perc 6/i and have the disk
geometry
David Wood wrote:
[ambrisko@ and scottl@ added to CCs]
Hi there,
What really needs to happen as a result of this thread is the following,
and I would appreciate volunteers taking up these tasks in some form:
1) FAQ entries written/updated/clarified/advertised as to how FreeBSD,
disklabels,
week). Most 3ware
RAID card don't have this feature.
So rather than not using RAID5 or RAID6 again, you should just not
use 3ware anymore.
If you use the 3dm2 management interface you can schedule verify and
rebuild tasks to run on a regular basis. I think that 7500 series
controllers can
Gary Palmer wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
If you use the 3dm2 management interface you can schedule verify and
rebuild tasks to run on a regular basis. I think that 7500 series
controllers can do this, 9500 and 9550's definitely can.
Actually it's all 7/8/9xxx series cards.
than not using RAID5 or RAID6 again, you should just not
use 3ware anymore.
If you use the 3dm2 management interface you can schedule verify and
rebuild tasks to run on a regular basis. I think that 7500 series
controllers can do this, 9500 and 9550's definitely can.
Actually it's all 7/8/9xxx
than not using RAID5 or RAID6 again, you should just not use 3ware
anymore.
Tom
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Martin Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is what patrol read is intended to detect before it is a problem.
In a RAID5 array the checksums are only used when reconstructing data,
if you have a bad block in a checksum sector it will not be detected
until a drive have failed
are confused. Checking for data corruption is done, by checking if the
*DATA* is corrupt. This does not require looking at the RAID5 checksum since
the data has its own data checksum.
I know some RAID systems do fake
their checksums, as they don't actually validate data against the
checksums
not using RAID5 or RAID6 again, you should just not
use 3ware anymore.
If you use the 3dm2 management interface you can schedule verify and
rebuild tasks to run on a regular basis. I think that 7500 series
controllers can do this, 9500 and 9550's definitely can.
We have 50+ systems that are using
Friday 24 August 2007 23:04:37 kirjutas Matthew Dillon:
A friend of mine once told me that the only worthwhile RAID systems are
the ones that email you a detailed message when something goes south.
-Matt
). Most 3ware RAID card don't
have this feature.
So rather than not using RAID5 or RAID6 again, you should just not use
3ware anymore.
Tom
It's a common mistake to assume that regular maintenance are not required
which is implied through It was working for years.
Your just waiting for some
at the RAID5
checksum since the data has its own data checksum.
No, not really. You are just referring to parity as checksums. They are
different.
Many RAID systems have checksums in addition to parity. For example, Netapp
ZCS disks.
...
However, in this particular case, validating
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:57:22 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um.. it is because i did not have a map of hot swap baskets to
conroller ports and i needed to check every driver basket to
understand which port it sits on. I have no choise, i think.
I'm just going to highlight the
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:57:22 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um.. it is because i did not have a map of hot swap baskets to
conroller ports and i needed to check every driver basket to
understand which port it sits on. I have no choise, i think.
I'm just going to highlight the
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:57:22 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um.. it is because i did not have a map of hot swap baskets to
conroller ports and i needed to check every driver basket to
understand which port it sits on. I have no choise, i think.
I'm just going to highlight the
On August 24, 2007 02:31 am Clayton Milos wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:57:22 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um.. it is because i did not have a map of hot swap baskets to
conroller ports and i needed to check every driver basket to
understand which port it sits on. I have
Feargal Reilly wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:57:22 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um.. it is because i did not have a map of hot swap baskets to
conroller ports and i needed to check every driver basket to
understand which port it sits on. I have no choise, i think.
I'm just
Är precis nyinflyttad i Göteborg, så jag vet inte riktigt var Linnéstaden
ligger, själv bor jag vid guldheden ett stenkast från wavrinsky platsen.
Förmiddagen passar mig bäst också då jag är upptagen på em :)
On 8/24/07, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feargal Reilly wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug
On August 24, 2007 02:31 am Clayton Milos wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:57:22 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um.. it is because i did not have a map of hot swap baskets to
conroller ports and i needed to check every driver basket to
understand which port it sits on. I have no
A friend of mine once told me that the only worthwhile RAID systems are
the ones that email you a detailed message when something goes south.
-Matt
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
file.
How come?
That is what patrol read is intended to detect before it is a problem.
In a RAID5 array the checksums are only used when reconstructing data,
if you have a bad block in a checksum sector it will not be detected
until a drive have failed and you try to rebuild the array,
unfortunately
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Artem Kuchin wrote:
could get access to number of left reserved sector for remapping. Any
idea about these two for 3ware controllers? Also, someone should
mention, that while using raid MUST do verifies often.
You can run smartmontools on disks behind 3ware controllers, eg
Artem Kuchin wrote:
That exactly was i was talking about. I don't acess to individual disks
behind raid unit, so, i cannot doit. I don't know it controller
VERIFY command does it right. If it doesm then i shoudl put it into a cron
job and do it on weekly basis. Also, it would halpfull it i
Artem Kuchin unleashed the infinite monkeys on 20/08/2007 23:38 producing:
---SNIP---
But i don't understand how and why it happened. ONly 6 hours ago (a
night before)
all those files were backed up fine w/o any read error. And now, right
after replacing
the driver and starting rebuild it
While we are on the subject:
What is the practical difference between VERIFY and REBUILD with regards
to a RAID-5 array?
My Highpoint RocketRAID 2320 and 2340 cards can be scheduled to perform
either verify or rebuild. I currently have them set to verify the arrays
weekly. Is that reasonably
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
That exactly was i was talking about. I don't acess to individual
disks
behind raid unit, so, i cannot doit. I don't know it controller
VERIFY command does it right. If it doesm then i shoudl put it into
a cron
job and do it on weekly basis. Also, it
You can run smartmontools on disks behind 3ware controllers, eg
/dev/twe0 -d 3ware,0 -a -o on -S on -m [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/dev/twe0 -d 3ware,1 -a -o on -S on -m [EMAIL PROTECTED]
did this:
smartctl /dev/twe0 -d 3ware,1 -a
for each driver on another server. Two driver are pretty old, the driver
While we are on the subject:
What is the practical difference between VERIFY and REBUILD with regards
to a RAID-5 array?
Verify should at a minimum read all the data. Ideally, it would read the
checksum blocks too to make sure they are still valid, but it might not.
Rebuild should read all
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Artem Kuchin wrote:
Now, what i don't understand is why Hardware_ECC_Recovered and
Seek_Error_Rate are so hight. The first one is maybe relate
to cabling problem. The driver are all in hot swap baskets of
supermicro 2u case. Maybe backpanel is no so good?
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
That exactly was i was talking about. I don't acess to individual
disks
behind raid unit, so, i cannot doit. I don't know it controller
VERIFY command does it right. If it doesm then i shoudl put it into
a cron
job and do it on
Hello!
Here is the newest story of mine about how one should
never use raid5.
Controller is 8xxx-4LP.
I have a simple 360GB raid5 with 4 drives since 2004.
Only about a year ago i realized how much speed i have
wasted be saving lousy 120GB. I should have choosen
bigger driver and setup two
Artem Kuchin wrote:
So, no raid5 or even raid 6 for me any more. Never!
A better policy is to invest in a higher quality RAID controller.
Also, always use a battery backup on the controller, and always have
an extra disk configured as a hot spare. Data integrity is expensive,
unfortunately
to life. We replaced the
whole box shortly thereafter.
The downside was the entire server was offline for the duration of the
process, instead of being online during a normal rebuild.
So, no raid5 or even raid 6 for me any more. Never!
If it's done properly, with hot spares and other failsafe
and the array is
rebuilt. Any high risk operations during that time would be foolhardy.
So, no raid5 or even raid 6 for me any more. Never!
Since RAID6 would have saved you from what presumably was a drive failure
before a rebuild could be done, it's hard to understand why you would say
.
So, no raid5 or even raid 6 for me any more. Never!
Since RAID6 would have saved you from what presumably was a drive
failure before a rebuild could be done, it's hard to understand why
you would say this is a reason to avoid RAID 6. Perhaps you would do
better to understand your failure and avoid
Hello Value Customer
AVXStor.com - a division of DATOptic, proudly introduces our Terabyte RAID5
external storage starting at $629.00
A quiet , compact hardware RAID tower with extreme speed and reliability
Features
- Terabyte capacity: 1.0TB, 2.0TB, 3.0TB support RAID 0, 1, 5 and 10
- High
On Saturday 01 July 2006 21:24, ASTESIN wrote:
Purpose: just Apache + mod_perl + MySQL 5.x application server.
Install went fine, system boots, I'm going to try PAE kernel on it. But
somathing makes me doubt that things are going on well...
I.e. I worry about strange messages in dmesg output
Dear FreeBSD gurus,
can anyone point me at a good FM where process of _proper_ setting up
FreeBSD 6-STABLE on 6 Gb RAM machine w/ 2 x Xeon CPU is described? It also
has ICP (former GDT) RAID controller w/RAID-5 configuration (iir0 device).
Purpose: just Apache + mod_perl + MySQL 5.x
Hi list,
I'm running FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p2 on a Dell PowerEdge 1850 with an attached
Dell PowerVault 220S disk cabinet. The cabinet has two RAID5 arrays each with
6 x 300GB SCSI disks. The RAID controller is a Dell PERC4/DC using the amr
driver. Two days ago a disk failed in one of the arrays
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:49:37PM +0200, Morten A. Middelthon wrote:
Hi list,
I'm running FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p2 on a Dell PowerEdge 1850 with an attached
Dell PowerVault 220S disk cabinet. The cabinet has two RAID5 arrays each with
6 x 300GB SCSI disks. The RAID controller is a Dell PERC4
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:54:23PM +0200, Morten A. Middelthon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:49:37PM +0200, Morten A. Middelthon wrote:
Hi list,
I'm running FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p2 on a Dell PowerEdge 1850 with an attached
Dell PowerVault 220S disk cabinet. The cabinet has two RAID5
I just noticed something very strange on one of our Dell PE1750 servers.
It is running FreeBSD 4-STABLE on dual CPU's with the embedded Dell Raid
controller (amr driver). Attached are 3 disks of 145GB. On a RAID5 logical
drive this gives me ~280GB storage.
Up until the last reboot (35 days ago
Hi,
I have a RAID5 array with 64K stripe size.
I am looking for the best settings to have best performance on this raid
array, maybe by making stripe size, block size the same..
What is the best setup for sectorsize of geli init -s ?
I did not find the unit for this setting ! is it bytes ?
geli
Verifying a raid5 array from High-Points CLI results in a panic. It has
always from the beginning of the driver behaved like this.
I dare what happens if a disk fail and I need a rebuild.
Did the authors verify these vital functions? Does other have the same
problem?
I have waited out
: hptmv, Verify a raid5 array panics
Verifying a raid5 array from High-Points CLI results in a panic. It has
always from the beginning of the driver behaved like this.
I dare what happens if a disk fail and I need a rebuild.
Did the authors verify these vital functions? Does other have the same
Sorry for the late reply ...
Torfinn Ingolfsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Highpoint RocketRAID 1640(4 ports)
Promise FastTrak S150 SX4(4 ports)
Promise FastTrak S150 SX4-M(4 ports)
Highpoint RocketRAID 1810A(4 ports)
Highpoint RocketRAID 1820A(8 ports)
Intel RAID
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:51:02 +0100 (CET)
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do that.
Noted. Good to know. :-)
Note that the HPT 18x0A have an onboard processor which
does the XOR (parity) calculations for RAID-5. For the
non-A versions,
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:49:15PM +0100, Christian Brueffer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:31:00PM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
I was thinking about gvinum for the storage server, but given the
current documentation and
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 05:04:57PM -0700, secmgr wrote:
Christian Brueffer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
In short, don't write gvinum off just yet. Documentation is around the
corner (as a result of a SoC project).
Actually
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 05:04:57PM -0700, secmgr wrote:
Whatever you do, don't complain about it on this list, or you'll just be
told that if you really wanted raid, you should be running SCSI disks
and a raid adapter. They may allow that 3ware does ok, but no ATA drive
should ever be
Stijn Hoop wrote this message on Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:30 +0100:
Besides, I've seen a few hardware RAID controllers having issues
themselves (and they weren't the cheapest ones available either).
Yep, and because of failure to get proper vender support, software
raid is looking more
like raid5. I've
been using it for more than a year now and didn't have problems with it.
Didn't have to try recovery from a dead disk also, but should work ok.
It's like regular RAID3 but uses sector-sized data chunks.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
I was thinking about gvinum for the storage server, but given the
current documentation and the discussions about it now, I don't want to
risk it.
IMHO it's pretty stable in 6.0. I've been running gvinum RAID-5 for a
while
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:15:48 +0100
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could use graid3(8) - it has data+parity components like raid5.
What about write performance? Based on RAID3 documentation I have read
(on the 'net, so I cannot vouch for the correctness of it), you will get
worse write
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:31:00PM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
I was thinking about gvinum for the storage server, but given the
current documentation and the discussions about it now, I don't want to
risk it.
IMHO it's
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:30:33PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:15:48 +0100
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could use graid3(8) - it has data+parity components like raid5.
What about write performance? Based on RAID3 documentation I have read
Christian Brueffer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
In short, don't write gvinum off just yet. Documentation is around the
corner (as a result of a SoC project).
Actually gvinum(8) has been committed to CURRENT and RELENG_6 a couple
of days
Whatever you do, don't complain about it on this list, or you'll just be
told that if you really wanted raid, you should be running SCSI disks
Ah, no please complain so that if s/w raid gives you trouble, there will
be something to point to when and if people doubt there are still
problems
I need to set up a storage server for my personal use. The current
solution on my little local network is a haphazard collection of old
machines with disks in them, and backups are so-so.
I could just set up a normal FreeBSD server, with single disks, and
setup another one for the backup.
I'm having a fiddle with RELENG_6 and while setting up a RAID1 system
disk I noticed that atacontrol now lets you create a RAID5 device.
I gave it a whirl and it seemed to work - I have a device I can use.
But is this working properly? I don't have a hardware raid card, just a
plain old SATA card
especially as they have superior disks attached
( 10K vs 7k2 ) and not performance which is well below ( 1/2 )
that expected of a single disk.
Can anyone report good performance from their SCSI RAID5
set on 5.4?
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Burden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My 3210S
asr 3200S cards got repurposed before I
could try them with 5.x, but with the 370F firmware I'm pretty sure I
was able to get more than 40MB/sec reads out of them on 4.x with 4-disk
RAID5 sets. Since the asr driver needs Giant, try a UP kernel and see
if it goes any faster.
--
Dan Nelson
more than 40MB/sec reads out of them on 4.x with 4-disk
RAID5 sets. Since the asr driver needs Giant, try a UP kernel and see
if it goes any faster.
Stated max seq read on the drives ( Maxtor 10k IV's ) is 89MB/s
where as the Seagate SATA's its 65MB/s so its a noticeable difference.
For the RAID
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
