Hi,
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:21:17 -0500 (EST), Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Gadi Oxman wrote:
>> As far as I know, we took care not to poke into the buffer cache to
>> find clean buffers -- in raid5.c, the only code which does a find_buffer()
>> is:
> yep, this i
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:41:55 -0600, "Mark Ferrell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps I am confused. How is it that a power outage while attached
> to the UPS becomes "unpredictable"?
One of the most common ways to get an outage while on a UPS is somebody
tripping over, or otherwise r
Hi,
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:28:28 MET-1, "Petr Vandrovec"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I did not follow this thread (on -fsdevel) too close (and I never
> looked into RAID code, so I should shut up), but... can you
> confirm that after buffer with data is finally marked dirty, parity
> is recomp
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> Ideally, what I'd like to see the reconstruction code do is to:
>
> * lock a stripe
> * read a new copy of that stripe locally
> * recalc parity and write back whatever disks are necessary for the stripe
> * unlock the stripe
>
> so that the data never goes through t
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Gadi Oxman wrote:
> As far as I know, we took care not to poke into the buffer cache to
> find clean buffers -- in raid5.c, the only code which does a find_buffer()
> is:
yep, this is still the case. (Sorry Stephen, my bad.) We will have these
problems once we try to elimin
On 11 Jan 00 at 22:24, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> The race I'm concerned about could occur when the raid driver wants to
> compute parity for a stripe and finds some of the blocks are present,
> and clean, in the buffer cache. Raid assumes that those buffers
> represent what is on disk, naturall
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 05:14:29PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> 2^10 kilo
> 2^20 mega
> 2^30 giga
> 2^40 terra
>
> ---> 2^^41== 2 terrabyte.
Sorry Manfred, the multiplier is 'TERA' - not 'TERRA', which
rather confusing spelling difference is used by M$ to market
their Terra
Perhaps I am confused. How is it that a power outage while attached
to the UPS becomes "unpredictable"?
We run a Dell PowerEdge 2300/400 using Linux software raid and the
system monitors it's own UPS. When power failure occures the system
will bring itself down to a minimal state (runleve
On 8 Jan 2000 11:44:28 +0100, Yair Itzhaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've found a cross-platform incompatibility when passing UMSDOS formatted
>media (a FLASH disk) between i386 and PowerPC. Media created under i386
>cannot be read using a PPC platform, and vice-versa.
>
>I've traced it to the f
Hi,
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:12:55 +0200 (IST), Gadi Oxman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Stephen, I'm afraid that there are some misconceptions about the
> RAID-5 code.
I don't think so --- I've been through this with Ingo --- but I
appreciate your feedback since I'm getting inconsistent advise her
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:03:03 +0100, mauelsha
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> THIS IS EXPECTED. RAID-5 isn't proof against multiple failures, and the
> >> only way you can get bitten by this failure mode is to have a system
> >> failure and a disk fail
11 matches
Mail list logo
