On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Harris wrote:
> > (2) Killed power to sdb while system was running. This caused a lockup
> > because the scsi driver could not handle loosing a drive.
>
> This needs to change :( The scsi layer needs to be a lot more robust tha
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2.1.131-ac11 + raid0145-19981214-2.1.131-ac9 (no autostart)
>
> 4-way P6-200, 1G ram, 10 9.1G Seagate drives (9 in raid-5 with 1 spare)
> across two aic-7880 controllers (on the MB)
>
> ---Sequential Output -
Hi,
Use a "raidhotadd" to add in the partition on the newly replaced failed
drive.
For example: md0 is made from sda1 and sdb1. The sdb drive fails, so md0
comes up in degraded mode running off of sda. When you add in a new sdb
drive the raid driver does not bother with it, but continues to run
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Harris wrote:
> (2) Killed power to sdb while system was running. This caused a lockup
> because the scsi driver could not handle loosing a drive.
This needs to change :( The scsi layer needs to be a lot more robust than
it is now.
-Dan
Hi,
Has anyone run bonnie against RAID-0/5 arrays running on either the AMI
438 Ultra-2/LVD with good LVD disks (e.g. Quantum Atlas III or even
Seagate Cheetah)? With any other LVD RAID controller? If so, I'd like to
see your results.
Thanks,
Chance
2.1.131-ac11 + raid0145-19981214-2.1.131-ac9 (no autostart)
4-way P6-200, 1G ram, 10 9.1G Seagate drives (9 in raid-5 with 1 spare)
across two aic-7880 controllers (on the MB)
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Dave J. Andruczyk wrote:
> What about for a STABLE array, created with md-0.35 ?? I have an old
> STABLE, yet fairly SLOW Raid0 array on a machine which is due to be
> upgraded to Redhat 5.2 I would prefer to NOT have to redo it. Can it be
> done, with the new raidtools??
d point, i have not thought of this. I have just tried this with the
19981214 patch, and my system did not actually crash, it retried to write
the new spare a couple of times then gave up. What were the symptoms on
your system? It really should not have crashed, read-only status can be
considere
Hi,
I just installed the 1998.12.14 raid driver kernel patch and raidtools
released earlier today, and I'm happy to report that it works like a charm.
In fact, the server I tested it on is going into production later today.
I took it through all of my usual tests, which I've detailed below.
The
What is the recommended procedure for restoring a mirror after one of the
drives fails? I'm using the latest patches for 2.0.35,
raid0145-19981110-2.0.35 and raidtools-19981201-0.90.tar.gz
I've used mkraid --force-resync, but when this is done I run e2fsck on the
filesystem and I get a lot of er
>
> yes, the 0.42-raidtools => 0.90 upgrade problem for RAID1 is fixed. (if
> you have an old RAID1 config, about the only thing to do is to add
> chunksize to the config file, any value will do, say 32k. Then do the
> --upgrade, it will upgrade without data loss)
>
> -- mingo
What about for a
yes, the 0.42-raidtools => 0.90 upgrade problem for RAID1 is fixed. (if
you have an old RAID1 config, about the only thing to do is to add
chunksize to the config file, any value will do, say 32k. Then do the
--upgrade, it will upgrade without data loss)
-- mingo
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Yann Douss
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
>
> this is an alpha release of the latest Linux RAID0145 drivers, against
> kernel 2.1.131-ac9 and 2.0.36. (ac10 and ac11 should patch cleanly too)
>
> WARNING: we are still not out of alpha status, some of the new features
> were tested only on my box.
13 matches
Mail list logo
