Hi Florian,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 09:15:53AM +0200, Rustedt, Florian wrote:
> On RAID 1, it is possible, to read two blocks in parallel to speed up, too.
>
> I tried to measure this some weeks ago, but i couldn't get over the
> read-performance of a single disk on my raid 1, so that means, that
Sorry for the reply to self, but the last thing I tried has provided
some more info:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 03:10:27AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> I'm now seeing the exact same problem as Ask did in:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg06762.html
>
I'm now seeing the exact same problem as Ask did in:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg06762.html
again using md raid10 under LVM, trying to export an LV to a xen
domain.
This is on the latest Debian Etch kernel based on 2.6.18.4.
Ask didn't seem to get any on list repli
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 07:46:21PM +0100, Mark Hellman wrote:
> I am in the process of deciding which SATA-II drives should I choose for an
> external RAID system. I heard that it was safer to choose drives from
> different manufacturers to reduce the chance of near-simultaneous failure
> due to mo
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 05:40:07PM -0700, Patrik Jonsson wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > Booting the system with a Knoppix 4 DVD (kernel version 2.6.12), I
> > went to set up the md arrays and got a syslog full of this:
> >
> > ata2: command 0x25 timeout, stat 0x50 host
Hi,
I'm building a system with 4 SATA ports based on Intel ICH7 and an
additional 2 ports on a Silicon Image 3112. There are 6 Seagate
drives, all model number ST3320620AS.
Booting the system with a Knoppix 4 DVD (kernel version 2.6.12), I
went to set up the md arrays and got a syslog full of th
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 07:25:58PM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Shai wrote:
> >>I have two SCSI disks on raid1.
> >>Since I have lots of reads from that raid, I want to add two more
> >>disks to t
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:30PM +0200, Shai wrote:
> I have two SCSI disks on raid1.
> Since I have lots of reads from that raid, I want to add two more
> disks to this raid so that read will be faster.
>
> How should I add the new disks?
Is this possible with md currently:
Create a RAID-10 o
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:14:37PM +, Gordon Henderson wrote:
> Still scratching my head, trying to work out if raid-10 can withstand
> (any) 2 disks of failure though, although after reading md(4) a few times
> now, I'm begining to think it can't (unless you are lucky!) So maybe I'll
> just st
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:48:49AM +0100, PFC wrote:
> I suggest, when using software raid, to create partitions that are,
> say, 100 megabytes or even a gigabyte smaller than the size of the
> drive.
> You lose a bit of space, but if you ever need to change one, you won't
> feel
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:22:04AM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:02:02PM -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> > it doesn't seem to make any sense at all to use a non-volatile external
> > memory for swap... swap has no purpose past a power outage.
>
> No, but it is a very fast swap
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:31:07AM -0800, it wrote:
> The hardware raid does the mirroring on the block level, so it's
> actually /dev/sda mirroring /dev/sdb - the whole drive, and not
> partitions. There is a way to set this up on software raid. It takes
> more configuration tweaking, but the m
Hello,
Given (what I imagine to be) the fairly common scenario of using an
md device as a PV for LVM and then using multiple LVs from that:
a) is there any benefit to altering the LV's extent size to match
the RAID stripe size?
b) is there any point in using the -E stride= option of mke2fs to
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:18:14PM -0600, J. Ryan Earl wrote:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>
> >I've actually had very good results hot swapping SCSI drives on a live
> >linux system though.
> >
> >Anyone tried SATA drives yet?
> >
> Yes, and it does NOT work yet. libata does not support hotpluggin
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:44:19PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:27:58AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:58:03PM +0100, Molle Bestefich wrote:
> >>If people could start saying
> >> "we need to get rid of in-kern
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:58:03PM +0100, Molle Bestefich wrote:
> Quoting Luca Berra:
> > the in kernel auto assembly should be removed for good
> > it should be replaced by auto assembly in user space (mdadm),
> > which does not suffer from the problems that in-kernel has.
>
> If people could st
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:09:27PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> I'm wondering: how well does md currently make use of the fact there
> are multiple devices in the different (non-parity) RAID levels for
> optimising reading and writing?
Thanks all for your answers.
signature.a
I'm wondering: how well does md currently make use of the fact there
are multiple devices in the different (non-parity) RAID levels for
optimising reading and writing?
For example, are *writes* to a 2 device RAID-0 approaching twice as
fast as to a single device? If not, are they any faster at al
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 09:27:28AM +0800, Max Waterman wrote:
> Max Waterman wrote:
> >
> >What would the procedure be for moving the data off my (single) Maxtor
> >onto a RAID1 of 2 WD800JBs?
> >
> >Max.
>
> Well, I didn't get a response to this question :|
All three disks are in the same machi
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:55:47PM +1100, Christopher Smith wrote:
> Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> >I just created a RAID array (4-disk RAID-6). When "mdadm -C" returned,
> >/proc/mdstat showed it syncing the new array at about 17 MB/s. "vmstat 1"
> >showed hardly any blocks in or out, and an almo
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:26:24PM -0800, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer to buy fewer, higher-capacity drives (300+ GB). Any
> > experience with the new 500's?
>
> I currently have 3 of the 500GB Hitachi's in a RAID-1 configuration
> using linux software RAID. So far, so good.
Hmm,
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 06:27:48PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> You can create partitions in any way you like. cfdisk is quite good
> at making this ... not trivial, but not hard.
> Create a tiny "1s" partition at the Beginning of the device. This will be
> sdb1. Create another tiny partition - sd
Hi,
I have a machine with 4 Maxtor drives in it. My sdb died and having
bad experiences with Maxtor in general I decided to buy a Seagate
replacement. Here's what I get on boot:
scsi0 : sata_nv
Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 6Y120M0Rev: YAR5
Type: Direct-Access A
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:30:09PM -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> If a little downtime is no big deal, and you could use a little extra
> disk space, then sure, don't mirror swap.
>
> If downtime is more important than the loss of a little disk space, then
> do mirror swap.
>
> Before you say that
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:11:20PM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are in the process of increasing the size our RAID Arrays as our
> storage needs increase.
[...]
> - Replace each disk (one after the other(after resync)) of the existing
> array with a bigger one.
I'd also like to
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 02:08:21AM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> hi ya raiders ..
>
> we(they) have 14x 72GB scsi disks config'd as raid5,
> ( no hot spare .. )
This seems like an awful lot of disks to have in a raid 5 with no
hot spares, to me, but then I am fairly new to RAID issues so maybe
I a
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
> There is no such thing like "the right data" from a block device's
> point of view. Both mirrors have "right data", since both got written
> independently. Thus, somebody has to choose one mirror being the
> "more right" one. This, of c
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 02:12:38AM +, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Anyway... I'm thinking of sending in a patch to take out the
> "experimental" status of RAID-6. I have been running a 1 TB
> production server in 1-disk degraded mode for about a month now
> without incident.
Out of interest, how m
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:27:00PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0500, Guy wrote:
> > It rotates the pairs!
> > Assume 3 disks, A, B and C.
> > Each stripe would be on these disks:
> > A+B
> > C+A
> > B+C
> > A+B
&
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0500, Guy wrote:
> It rotates the pairs!
> Assume 3 disks, A, B and C.
> Each stripe would be on these disks:
> A+B
> C+A
> B+C
> A+B
> C+A
> B+C
> ...
Hmm, difficult to visualise and comprehend if there are any
differences as opposed to "normal" RAID-10.
Is th
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:50:43AM -0500, Guy wrote:
> RAID10 will work with an odd number of disks! If really is cool!
It will? How? Does it just make the last mirror "pair" have 3
disks or what?
If so then wouldn't it be better just to not have that disk under
md and use it for someting else
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 04:24:47PM +, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> FWIW I get these results with RAID-0
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/md0
>
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 170 MB in 3.00 seconds = 56.64 MB/sec
>
> /dev/sdb:
> Timing buffered disk r
32 matches
Mail list logo
