On Monday 25 February 2008 19:50:52 Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > On Monday 25 February 2008 15:02:31 Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Dexter Filmore wrote:
> >>> Currently my array consists of four Sams
On Monday 25 February 2008 15:02:31 Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > Currently my array consists of four Samsung Spinpoint sATA drives, I'm
> > about to enlarge to 6 drive.
> > As of now they sit on an Sil3114 controller via PCI, henc
Currently my array consists of four Samsung Spinpoint sATA drives, I'm about
to enlarge to 6 drive.
As of now they sit on an Sil3114 controller via PCI, hence there's a
bottleneck, can't squeeze more than 15-30 megs write speed (rather 15 today
as the xfs partitions on it are brim full and start
On Friday 08 February 2008 00:22:36 Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thursday February 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 03:02:00 Neil Brown wrote:
> > > On Monday February 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Seems the other topic wasn't quite clear...
> > >
> > > not necessarily.
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 03:02:00 Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday February 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Seems the other topic wasn't quite clear...
>
> not necessarily. sometimes it helps to repeat your question. there
> is a lot of noise on the internet and somethings important things get
>
Seems the other topic wasn't quite clear...
Occasionally a disk is kicked for being "non-fresh" - what does this mean and
what causes it?
Dex
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(--
[ 40.671910] md: md0 stopped.
[ 40.676923] md: bind
[ 40.677136] md: bind
[ 40.677370] md: bind
[ 40.677572] md: bind
[ 40.677618] md: kicking non-fresh sdd1 from array!
When is a disk "non-fresh" and what might lead to this?
Happened about 15 times now since I built the array.
Dex
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 10:35:47 David Greaves wrote:
> Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > Why dontcha just cut all the "look how big my ePenis is" chatter and tell
> > us what you wanna do?
> > Nobody gives a rat if your ultra1337 sound cards needs a 10 megawatt
>
Why dontcha just cut all the "look how big my ePenis is" chatter and tell us
what you wanna do?
Nobody gives a rat if your ultra1337 sound cards needs a 10 megawatt power
supply.
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o? K-
w--
How do I stop a running sync? I just figured that I --add-ed an entire disk
instead of the partition.
What do I do anyway? remove the disk, set it as faulty?
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y
On Monday 18 June 2007 17:22:06 David Greaves wrote:
> Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > 1661 minutes is *way* too long. it's a 4x250GiB sATA array and usually
> > takes 3 hours to resync or check, for that matter.
> >
> > So, what's this?
>
> kernel, mdadm veri
Bootet today, got this in dmesg:
[ 44.884915] md: bind
[ 44.885150] md: bind
[ 44.885352] md: bind
[ 44.885552] md: bind
[ 44.885601] md: kicking non-fresh sdd1 from array!
[ 44.885637] md: unbind
[ 44.885671] md: export_rdev(sdd1)
[ 44.900824] raid5: device sdc1 operational as rai
> 10gb read test:
>
> dd if=/dev/md0 bs=1M count=10240 of=/dev/null
>
> What is the result?
71,7MB/s - but that's reading to null. *writing* real data however looks quite
different.
>
> I've read that LVM can incur a 30-50% slowdown.
>
Even then the 8-10MB/s I get would be a little low.
--
On Monday 11 June 2007 14:47:50 Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > I recently upgraded my file server, yet I'm still unsatisfied with the
> > write speed.
> > Machine now is a Athlon64 3400+ (Socket 754) equipped with 1GB of RAM.
&
I recently upgraded my file server, yet I'm still unsatisfied with the write
speed.
Machine now is a Athlon64 3400+ (Socket 754) equipped with 1GB of RAM.
The four RAID disks are attached to the board's onbaord sATA controller
(Sil3114 attached via PCI)
Kernel is 2.6.21.1, custom on Slackware 11.
> Neil,
>
> So in his case, is there anyway to determine which files are potentially
> corrupted?
I'd like to know that, too...
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(+
> > xerxes:/sys/block/md0/md# cat mismatch_cnt
> > 147248
> > Need to worry?
>
> If you have a swap file on this array, then that could explain it, so
> don't worry.
Nope, swap is not on the array.
Couple of loops tho.
>
> If not... maybe worry?
>
> I assume you did a 'check' or 'repair' before l
So I practiced what I learned today and scrubbed the array.
Getting this:
xerxes:/sys/block/md0/md# cat mismatch_cnt
147248
4x 250GB Samsung sATA, smartctl says all fine.
Need to worry?
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_Install_on_Software_RAID#Data_Scrubbing
"Warning: Be aware that the combination of RAID5 and loop-devices will most
likely cause severe filesystem damage, especially when using ext3 and
ReiserFS. Some users suggest that XFS is not affected by this, but this ha
I just ran smartctl -d ata on my sATA disks (Samsung) and got these raw
values:
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 3344107
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 2786896
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 617712
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 773986
Looking at a 5 year old 40GB Maxtor that's not been cooled too well I see
Am Montag, 23. Oktober 2006 18:43 schrieben Sie:
Sound familiar... two things: what exact LVM2 version are you using there?
Could you try and shutdown the machine completely till power off and cold boot
it a couple of times and see if the issue persists?
Dex
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
I noticed the new kernels have an API for driving LEDs - anyone used that to
display the array status?
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@
b++(+++) DI+
Want to change a partition from xfs to ext3 but can't tell what to put for
stride.
man page says:
"stride=stripe-size
Configure the filesystem for a RAID array with
stripe-size filesystem blocks per stripe."
So, what is stripe size anywa
Am Sonntag, 17. September 2006 13:36 schrieben Sie:
> On 9/17/06, Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's recommended to use a script to scrub the raid device regularly,
> > > to detect sleeping bad blocks early.
> >
> > What's the best way to do that? dd the full md device to /dev/
> > What's the remaining third?
> > I fumbled it into rc.S and rc.6, reason why I ask is that array degraded
> > about 6 times in the few months I run it and I can't figure why. Only
> > thing I know is that it degrades somewhere in the reboot process, so I
> > suspect it might not properly shutdow
Am Samstag, 16. September 2006 19:26 schrieb Bill Davidsen:
> Dexter Filmore wrote:
> >Is anyone here who runs a soft raid on Slackware?
> >Out of the box there are no raid scripts, the ones I made myself seem a
> > little rawish, barely more than mdadm --assemble/--stop.
&g
> His advice
> was valid.
Maybe valid but not helping with my problem since the problem is/was,
that /dev/md0 didn't exist at all. mdadm -C won't create device nodes.
But I figured the workaround meanwhile, so it doesn't matter anymore.
(In case someone wanna know: mknod in /lib/udev/devices do
Am Donnerstag, 14. September 2006 17:58 schrieb Tuomas Leikola:
> > > mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/hda1 /dev/hdb1 # i think, man mdadm
> >
> > Not what I meant: there already exists an array on a file server that was
> > created from the server os, I want to boot that server from knoppix
> > inst
Am Mittwoch, 13. September 2006 15:48 schrieb Rob Bray:
> > Am Dienstag, 12. September 2006 16:08 schrieb Justin Piszcz:
> >> /dev/MAKEDEV /dev/md0
> >>
> >> also make sure the SW raid modules etc are loaded if necessary.
> >
> > Won't work, MAKEDEV doesn't know how to create [/dev/]md0.
>
> mknod
t; On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 12. September 2006 16:08 schrieb Justin Piszcz:
> >> /dev/MAKEDEV /dev/md0
> >>
> >> also make sure the SW raid modules etc are loaded if necessary.
> >
> > Won't work, MAKEDEV doesn't
Am Dienstag, 12. September 2006 16:08 schrieb Justin Piszcz:
> /dev/MAKEDEV /dev/md0
>
> also make sure the SW raid modules etc are loaded if necessary.
Won't work, MAKEDEV doesn't know how to create [/dev/]md0.
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>
Am Dienstag, 12. September 2006 15:29 schrieb Justin Piszcz:
> fdisk -l
>
> then you have to assemble the array
>
> mdadm --assemble /dev/md0 /dev/hda1 /dev/hdb1 # i think, man mdadm
Not what I meant: there already exists an array on a file server that was
created from the server os, I want to bo
When running Knoppix on my file server, I can't mount /dev/md0 simply because
it isn't there.
Am I guessing right that I need to recreate the array?
How do I gather the necessary parameters?
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C UL++ P+>++ L+++> E-- W++
Array is online, degraded for the moment but I can access the file systems for
backups.
I passed -A --force to mdadm, seems that did the trick.
What puzzles me still is that I had a degraded array for the third time now
and never could tell why it happened in the first place.
This time the mac
My file server crashed *again* (think there's some harware faulty)
Now at boot time the array is not assembled, I get an I/O error.
/proc/mdstat looks like this:
Personalities : [raid5]
md0 : inactive sda1[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2]
732563712 blocks
unused devices:
I am missing something like [U
Am Montag, 28. August 2006 04:03 schrieben Sie:
> The easiest thing to do is simply recreate the array, making sure to
> have the drives in the correct order, and any options (like chunk
> size) the same. This will not hurt the data (if done correctly).
First time I hear this. Good to know.
Thoug
Am Dienstag, 22. August 2006 03:18 schrieb Neil Brown:
> >
> > Most notable: [ 38.536733] md: kicking non-fresh sdd1 from array!
> > What does this mean?
>
> It means that the 'event' count on sdd1 is old compared to that on
> the other partitions. The most likely explanation is that when the
>
Am Montag, 21. August 2006 13:04 schrieb Dexter Filmore:
I seriously don't know what's going on here.
I upgraded packages and rebooted the machine to find that now disk 4 of 4 is
not assembled.
Here's dmesg and mdadm -E
* dmesg **
[ 38.439644]
Am Montag, 21. August 2006 03:26 schrieb Neil Brown:
>
> The output of
> mdadm -E /dev/sdc1
> might have been interesting, but I guess it is too late for that now.
True. Bummer. As you can imagine I wanted the array degraded for as short as
possible and was eager to take measures to bring it ba
raid5, 4 sata disks, slackware with 2.6.14.6.
Yesterday the machine hung, so I used MagicKey to sync, remount read only and
reboot.
After that the third disk was not assembled into the array.
dmesg came up with:
[ 34.652268] md: md0 stopped.
[ 34.742673] md: bind
[ 34.742900] md: invalid
Am Montag, 17. Juli 2006 20:28 schrieb Bill Davidsen:
> >Next question: assembling by UUID, does that matter at all?
>
> No. There's the beauty of it.
That's what I needed to hear.
>
> >(And while talking UUID - can I safely migrate to a udev-kernel? Someone
> > on this list recently ran into tro
Am Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2006 06:10 schrieben Sie:
Care to enlighten the rest of us what did the trick?
Dex
> please disregard this email .. after doing more google research i have
> re-assembled the array and once again am a true believer of software
> raid
>
> BEHOLD THE POWER OF MD
> -
> To unsu
Currently I have 4 discs on a 4 channel sata controller which does its job
quite well for 20 bucks.
Now, if I wanted to grow the array I'd probably go for another one of these.
How can I tell if the discs on the new controller will become sd[e-h] or if
they'll be the new a-d and push the existi
Am Freitag, 23. Juni 2006 14:50 schrieben Sie:
> Strange that whatever the filesystem you get equal numbers of people
> saying that
> they have never lost a single byte to those who have had horrible
> corruption and
> would never touch it again. We stopped using XFS about a year ago because
> we w
What type of operation is XOR anyway? Should be ALU, right?
So - what CPU is best for software raid? One with high integer processing
power?
Dex
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C+++() UL+> P+>++ L+++> E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS++(+) P
> On Monday May 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I just dd'ed a 700MB iso to /dev/null, dd returned 33MB/s.
> > Isn't that a little slow?
> > System is a sil3114 4 port sata 1 controller with 4 samsung spinpoint
> > 250GB, 8MB cache in raid 5 on a Athlon XP 2000+/512MB.
>
> Yes, read on raid5 isn't
Am Montag, 22. Mai 2006 22:31 schrieb Brendan Conoboy:
> Dexter Filmore wrote:
> > I just dd'ed a 700MB iso to /dev/null, dd returned 33MB/s.
> > Isn't that a little slow?
> > System is a sil3114 4 port sata 1 controller with 4 samsung spinpoint
> > 250GB, 8M
> > Will it be less risky to grow an array that way?
>
> It should be. In particular it will survive an unexpected reboot (as
> long as you don't lose and drives at the same time) which I don't
> think raidreconf would.
> Testing results so far are quite positive.
Write cache comes to mind - did
How will the raid5 resize in 2.6.17 be different from raidreconf?
Will it be less risky to grow an array that way?
Will it be possible to migrate raid5 to raid6?
(And while talking of that: can I add for example two disks and grow *and*
migrate to raid6 in one sweep or will I have to go raid6 an
copying from a local standalone disk to a raid5 array works smooth at a
constant 30MB/s. So far, so good.
Now, copying data from a machine on the network over 100MBit NFS is kinda
jerky. It works, but within a second or two, the transfer rate reported goes
from a few 100k/s up to 22MB/s (which
> So in the very simple one-array situation, this is probably safe.
> But it doesn't generalise. If you have two array of distinct devices,
> then something like
>
> ARRAY /dev/md0 devices=/dev/sda1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdd1
> ARRAY /dev/md1 devices=/dev/sde1,/dev/sdf1,/dev/sdg1,/dev/sdh1
>
> An alternative is to use the --size option of mdadm to make the array
> slightly smaller than the smallest drive.
timtowtdi, as usual
> > > However as you should be listing the uuids in /etc/mdadm.conf, any
> > Umm... yeah, should I?
> What else would you use to uniquely identify the arrays?
> I always use entire disks if I want the entire disks raided (sounds
> obvious, doesn't it...) I only use partitions when I want to vary the
> raid layout for different parts of the disk (e.g. mirrored root, mirrored
> swap, raid6 for the rest). But that certainly doesn't mean it is
> wrong to
Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2006 20:42 schrieben Sie:
> > Now the devices have all two superblocks, the one left from the first try
> > which are now kinda orphaned and those now active.
> > Can I trust mdadm to handle this properly on its own?
>
> I'm not sure what "properly" means. you should not leave
Am Sonntag, 14. Mai 2006 16:50 schrieben Sie:
> > What do I need to do when I want to install a different distro on the
> > machine with a raid5 array?
> > Which files do I need? /etc/mdadm.conf? /etc/raittab? both?
>
> MD doesn't need any files to function, since it can auto-assemble
> arrays base
Since xfs is not shrinkable (if this information is not correct anymore, let
me know), I consider ext3.
Do I need to no anything? Will there be a noticable performance impact
(softraid5 on four sata disks, athlon xp2000+/512mb)?
Do I have to provide stride parameter like for ext2?
Dex
--
Mystery solved: had to probe another module.
Wait, wait, I can defend myself :)
What led me to believe the controller was autoprobed during boot is that mdadm
complained about *sdd*, but not about sd[abc], hence I assumed [abc] were all
fine.
Plus, I didn't have to probe the module manually aft
Am Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 07:50 schrieb Luca Berra:
> you don't give a lot of information about your setup,
You're sure right here, I was a bit off track yesterday from tinkering till
night - info below.
> in any case it could be something like udev and the /dev/sdd device node
> not being availa
Finally got me a bunch of disks as a raid 5, I don't even want to boot from
it, plain data array. four sata-II samsungs on a sil3114 controller, all fine
so far.
Booting the machine I get "no superblock on /dev/sdd, stopping
assembly" (or assembly aborted or so)
After boot has completed, runnin
Am Mittwoch, 19. April 2006 18:31 schrieb Shai:
> On 4/19/06, Dexter Filmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's say a disk in an array starts yielding smart errors but is still
> > functional.
> > So instead of waiting for it to fail completely and start a syn
Let's say a disk in an array starts yielding smart errors but is still
functional.
So instead of waiting for it to fail completely and start a sync and stress
the other disks, could I clone that disk to a fresh one, put the array
offline and replace the disk?
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK--
Hi,
I'm currently planning my first raid array.
I intend to go for softraid (budget's the limiting factor), not sure about 5
or 6 yet.
Plan so far: build a raid5 from 3 disks, later add a disk and reconf to raid6.
Question: is that possible at all? Can a raid5 be reconfed to a raid6 with
raidre
62 matches
Mail list logo
