On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Jorj Bauer wrote:
> raid0.c doesn't need the #include either (and won't
> compile for 2.0.35 with it). After that (and with the blkdev.h changes),
> it compiles for 2.0.35.
the include is needed on 2.1, so i've put it into md_compatible.h.
-- mingo
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Jorj Bauer wrote:
> It looks like the head of md_k.h has an error, though. Presumably, the
> default should return -4, not -3:
>
> static inline int pers_to_level (int pers)
> {
> switch (pers) {
> case LVM: retu
raid0.c doesn't need the #include either (and won't
compile for 2.0.35 with it). After that (and with the blkdev.h changes),
it compiles for 2.0.35.
It looks like the head of md_k.h has an error, though. Presumably, the
default should return -4, not -3:
static inline int pers_to_leve
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Rob Vanderhoff wrote:
> I had the same problem, and found a conflicting declaration for the
> function in question in include/linux/blkdev.h. However, after fixing, I
> encountered more and more errors, so I have given up for now. Possibly
> not all files are being patched
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Rob Vanderhoff wrote:
>
> I had the same problem, and found a conflicting declaration for the
> function in question in include/linux/blkdev.h. However, after fixing, I
> encountered more and more errors, so I have given up for now. Possibly
> not all files are being patc
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Eric B. Sobalvarro wrote:
> Same here...
try the 11.06 patches ...
-- mingo
a prototype (kernel-space and MD
> > based) LVM implementation.
> >
> > WARNING: we are still not out of alpha status, some of the
> > features are
> > not widely tested. It should be mostly ok, but a backup never
> > hurts ...
> >
> > you can find
oops, this patch is missing from the 2.0 patch.
-- mingo
--- linux/include/linux/blkdev.h.orig Fri Nov 6 01:32:04 1998
+++ linux/include/linux/blkdev.hFri Nov 6 01:31:41 1998
@@ -53,8 +53,9 @@
extern void make_request(int major,int rw, struct buffer_head * bh);
/* md needs this
Same here...
John Lellis wrote:
>
> I applied the raid0145-19981105-2.0.35 patches to a virgin copy of
> 2.0.35 and they all succeeded. But, when I try to make the kernel, I
> get compile errors. For example, with only striping configured I get
> the following:
>
&
WARNING: we are still not out of alpha status, some of the
> features are
> not widely tested. It should be mostly ok, but a backup never
> hurts ...
>
> you can find raid0145-19981105-2.1.125.gz,
> raid0145-19981105-2.1.125.gz
> and raidtools-19981105-0.90.tar.gz in
I just did a virgin install of RH 5.1 on a machine. I upgraded the
kernel to 2.1.125 and installed raidtools-0.90 and tried to stripe
2 9gig barracudas as md0. I edited the raidtab file (included below)
and ran raidstart -a. It gives the following error:
# /sbin/raidstart -a
/dev/md0: In
>
> DUMP: short read error from /dev/md0: [sector -134215687]: count=512, got=0
> DUMP: bread: lseek2 fails!
>
> [and so on, ad infinitum]
>
> is this a problem with the RAID drivers, or am I just seeing Linux
> barf with an oversized volume? Is there a solution besides
> repartitioning to
I'm trying to back up a 14GB RAID-5 array (19981005 snapshot
drivers/tools) to a 12/24GB DAT drive using dump. Here's what happens:
running /sbin/dump 0ufbB /dev/nst0 32 18874368 /raid
DUMP: Date of this level 0 dump: Thu Nov 5 15:19:53 1998
DUMP: Date of last level 0 dump: the epoch
DUMP:
Hi,
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:15:15 +0100, Luca Berra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 1998 at 01:24:39PM -0500, Jorj Bauer wrote:
>> useful. On a busy mail machine, it's difficult to get a static backup of
>> the contents of /var/spool/mail. If the raid tools supported the ability
>> to
of the features are
not widely tested. It should be mostly ok, but a backup never hurts ...
you can find raid0145-19981105-2.1.125.gz, raid0145-19981105-2.1.125.gz
and raidtools-19981105-0.90.tar.gz in the usual alpha directory:
http://linux.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha
new
I've got a question about software RAID 1.
If I run RAID 1 on two drives and put ext2 partitions on the resulting
RAID device, will there be an ordinary ext2 partitions on the
individual drives? ie, if I shut the machine down and take the drives
out, would they contain ordinary mountable ext2 pa
*sigh*.
Do forged headers and non-resolving IP's legally qualify under
the so-called proposed legislation?
-- Forwarded message --
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu (vger.rutgers.edu [128.6.190.2])
by red.hex.net (8.8.8/8.8.7)
17 matches
Mail list logo
