H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Depends how "bad" the drive is. Just to align the thread on this -
If the boot sector is bad - the bios on newer boxes will skip to the
next one. But if it is "good", and you boot into garbage - - could
be Windows.. does it crash?
Right, if the
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Depends how "bad" the drive is. Just to align the thread on this -
If the boot sector is bad - the bios on newer boxes will skip to the
next one. But if it is "good", and you boot into garbage - - could be
Windows.. does it crash?
Right, if the drive is dead almost e
berk walker wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
device /dev/sda (hd0)
root (hd0,0)
install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/stage1 (hd0)
/boot/grub/e2fs_stage1_5 p /boot/grub/stage2 /boot/grub/menu.lst
device /dev/hdc (hd0)
root (hd0,0)
install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /b
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 21:21 +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> > If you run mdadm -D /dev/md1 it will tell you the data offset
> > (in sectors IIRC).
>
> Uh, I don't see it:
Sorry, it's part of mdadm -E instead:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
/dev/sdc1:
Magic : a92b4efc
V
Doug Ledford said: (by the date of Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:40:48 -0400)
> so you really only need to align the
> lvm superblock so that data starts at 128K offset into the raid array.
Sorry, I thought that it will be easier to figure this out
experimentally - put LVM here or there, write 128k of
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 23:16 +0100, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> Bill Davidsen said: (by the date of Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:01:05 -0400)
>
> > So I would expect this to make a very large performance difference, so
> > even if it work it would do so slowly.
>
> I was trying to find out the stripe layou
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:08:42 +1000
Konstantin Sharlaimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch adds RAID1 read balancing to device mapper. A read
> operation that is close (in terms of sectors) to a previous read or
> write goes to the same mirror.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Sharlaimov <[EMA
Greg Cormier wrote:
Any reason 0.9 is the default? Should I be worried about using 1.0
superblocks? And can I "upgrade" my array from 0.9 to 1.0 superblocks?
Do understand that Neil may have other reasons... but mainly the 0.9
format is the default because it is most widely supported and al
This patch adds RAID1 read balancing to device mapper. A read operation
that is close (in terms of sectors) to a previous read or write goes to
the same mirror.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Sharlaimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Please give it a try, it works for me, yet my results might be system-speci
