On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:23:26AM -0400, Geof Goodrum wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
>
>
> I also expect "mkinitrd --preload raid5 /boot/initrd 2.0.35" would work
> for autostart with modules. My setup has both RAID and non-RAID (rescue)
> boot configurations that should ben
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Sorry if this is out of place on the linux-raid list (it appears to be
mostly 'software raid' discussions), i am just trying to find anyone who
has run into a similar problem when formatting their drives as below, and
i suspect someone on this list may of seen
Just curious,
There was a large rejection when applying raid0145-19981005 to the 2.1.125
kernel source (problems with drivers/block/md.c). Is there a new version
being released to cleanly apply to 2.1.125, or can I just copy over the
patched 2.1.124 md.c and go from there? The only differenc
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Benjamin de los Angeles Jr. wrote:
> > If, on the other hand, you want to randomize your spindle load (i.e. ideally
> > have a different process reading or writing to/from each spindle), then you
> > want a large chunk size. Some people also call this overlapped read and
> >
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:53:08 +0300 (EEST), Matti Aarnio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Do several parallel writes, and then start 2 or 3 parallel
>> > (f)syncs. If you do one, it completes rather rapidly, but
>> > two in parallel is bad medicine, and three is, well ..
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, tommiy wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply but I am still at a loss as to what is
> > going wrong here at this end. [...]
>
> does your array start up if RAID is compiled into the kernel instead of
> modules? Note that you cann
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > > #define SPEED_LIMIT 100
> > > Shouldnt this be a kernel boot option rather than a hardcoded define.
> > maybe, but i thought this to be a non-issue. There must be something
> > terribly wrong about a system that has no idle disk time. (and in that
>
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Benjamin de los Angeles Jr. wrote:
> Basing from the short documentation included in raidtools -- is the chunk
> size used in writing AND reading data from a RAID device? If it is,
> then in a RAID0 setup, it would be better if I have smaller chunks i.e.
> 8k, that is if I
