On Monday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This is what I get now, after creating with fdisk /dev/hdb1 and
> /dev/hdc1 as linux raid autodetect partitions
So I'm totally confused now.
You said it was 'linear', but the boot log showed 'raid0'.
The drives didn't have a partition table
On Monday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This is what I get now, after creating with fdisk /dev/hdb1 and
> /dev/hdc1 as linux raid autodetect partitions
So I'm totally confused now.
You said it was 'linear', but the boot log showed 'raid0'.
The drives didn't have a partition table
On Monday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > Alternately you can apply the following patch to the kernel and
> > version-1 superblocks should work better.
>
> -stable material?
Maybe. I'm not sure it exactly qualifies, but I might try sending it
to them and see what the
Neil Brown wrote:
Alternately you can apply the following patch to the kernel and
version-1 superblocks should work better.
-stable material?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vge
We can now make the following variables static:
- drivers/md/md.c: mdp_major
- init/main.c: envp_init[]
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This patch was already sent on:
- 16 May 2006
drivers/md/md.c |2 +-
init/main.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 del
This patch removes an unused variable.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.17-mm2-full/drivers/md/raid5.c.old2006-06-26
21:17:13.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.17-mm2-full/drivers/md/raid5.c2006-06-26 21:17:20.0
+0200
@@ -2827,7 +2827,6 @@
str
This is what I get now, after creating with fdisk /dev/hdb1 and
/dev/hdc1 as linux raid autodetect partitions
mdadm -E /dev/hdb1
/dev/hdb1:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.00
UUID : a7e90d4b:f347bd0e:07ebf941:e718f695
Creation Time : Wed Mar 16 18:14:25 2005
I managed to get the hard disk of the retired system and this is
its raid-related boot log:
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
[events: 004d]
[events: 004d]
md: autorun ...
md: considering hdb1 ...
md: adding hdb1 ...
md: adding hdc1 ...
md: created md0
md: bind
md: bind
md: running:
Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Gabor ,
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
Do you know if it is possible to switch the scheduler at runtime?
echo cfq > /sys/block//queue/scheduler
At least one can do a
Ronald Lembcke wrote:
Hi!
I set up a RAID5 array of 4 disks. I initially created a degraded array
and added the fourth disk (sda1) later.
The array is "clean", but when I do
mdadm -S /dev/md0
mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/sd[abcd]1
it won't start. It always says sda1 is "failed".
When
Adam Talbot wrote:
Not exactly sure how to tune for stripe size.
What would you advise?
-Adam
See the -R option of mke2fs. I don't have a number for the performance
impact of this, but I bet someone else on the list will. Depending on
what posts you read, reports range from "measurable"
As Christian said, specific error message help a lot.
Assume the two devices are hdc and hde,
fdisk -l /dev/hdc
fdisk -l /dev/hde
mdadm -E /dev/hdc
mdadm -E /dev/hde
and my best guess
mdadm --build /dev/md0 --level linear --raid-disks 2 /dev/hdc /dev/hde
fsck -n /dev/md0
(and linux-ra
This is shrinking an array by removing drives. We were talking about
shrinking an array by reducing the size of drives - a very different
think.
Yes I know - I just wanted to get this in as an alternative shrinking semantic.
As for reducing the RAID (partition) size on the individual drives I
Gordon Henderson wrote:
I use option 2 (above) all the time, and I've never noticed any
performance issues. (not issues with recovery after a power failure) I'd
like to think that on a modern processor the CPU can handle the parity,
etc. calculations several orders of magnitude faster than the
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
On Friday June 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that there is no cost effective backup available.
One-liner questions :
- How does Google make backups ?
No, Google ARE
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Chris Allen wrote:
> Back to my 12 terabyte fileserver, I have decided to split the storage
> into four partitions
> each of 3TB. This way I can choose between XFS and EXT3 later on.
>
> So now, my options are between the following:
>
> 1. Single 12TB /dev/md0, partitioned int
On Friday June 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Why would you ever want to reduce the size of a raid5 in this way?
>
> A feature that would have been useful to me a few times is the ability
> to shrink an array by whole disks.
>
> Example:
>
> 8x 300 GB disks -> 2100 GB raw capacity
>
> shrink
17 matches
Mail list logo