thanks everyone for the help, stupid me for not trying it before :)
-Original Message-
From: Uwe Schmeling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Quinta-feira, 4 de Novembro de 1999 8:11
To: Richard Costa
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Patch for kernel 2.2.13?
On Wed, 3
My impression was that the s/w raid code only wrote to the ends (last 4k)
of each device, so I'm trying to clarify the following paragraph from
http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/Software-RAID.HOWTO-4.html#ss4.7
The persistent superblocks solve these problems. When an
[ Thursday, November 4, 1999 ] Marc Merlin wrote:
I'm using 2.2.12 into which I patched in raid0145-19990724-2.2.10
Because of an apparent SCSI problem, I had two errors in a row on two
different disks (2 out of 9), and yet the array didn't shut down:
kernel: raid5: Disk failure
On 03-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know when the raid 0.90 patch for kernel 2.2.13 should be
released?
I've looked at kernel.org but latest there is 2.2.11.
you can find it here:
ftp://ftp.fr.kernel.org/mirrors/ftp.kernel.org/linux/kernel/alan/2.2.13ac/
Christopher
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:09:31AM -0500, James Manning wrote:
My impression was that the s/w raid code only wrote to the ends (last 4k)
of each device, so I'm trying to clarify the following paragraph from
http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/Software-RAID.HOWTO-4.html#ss4.7
At 03:17 PM 11/4/1999 +0100, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:09:31AM -0500, James Manning wrote:
My impression was that the s/w raid code only wrote to the ends (last 4k)
of each device, so I'm trying to clarify the following paragraph from
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:01:41AM -0500, David Cooley wrote:
...
Does this mean we no longer have to start raid partitions at block 1
instead of block zero?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea of what you're referring to...
When accessing the RAID device you can't see that there is a superblock
[ Thursday, November 4, 1999 ] David Cooley wrote:
Does this mean we no longer have to start raid partitions at block 1
instead of block zero?
Just out of curiosity, when was this the case? I've done s/w raid's
on drives (not making partitions, so I lost autorun unfortunately)
and never had
When I first set up my Raid 5, I made the partitions with Fdisk, and
started /dev/hdc1 at block 0, the end was the end of the disk (single
partition per drive except /dev/hdc5 is type whole disk).
It ran fine until I rebooted, when it came up and said there was no valid
superblock. I
Do we need to patch Linux 2.2.9
before we can use the raidtools (like mkraid)
to install raid.
yes
2.2.9 was not a good version for RAID (or generally - filesystem corruption
problems). It is recommended to upgrade to 2.2.11+ or drop back to 2.2.7. Either
way, you will still need to
Is it possible to put S/W raid on 2.0.x kernels? I am pretty happy with my
current box (2.0.38) and I want to add some more drives to it. Is the 2.0
kernel okay?
Sean
Does this mean we no longer have to start raid partitions at block 1
instead of block zero?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea of what you're referring to...
See David's messages of 17/09/99 in the "Problem with mkraid for /dev/md0"
thread. David's curious experience and resulting misconception
[ Thursday, November 4, 1999 ] David Cooley wrote:
Does this mean we no longer have to start raid partitions at block 1
instead of block zero?
Just out of curiosity, when was this the case? I've done s/w raid's
on drives (not making partitions, so I lost autorun unfortunately)
and never had
I've got one machine running this (2.0.37) and it works fine.
I've got several Pentium I/II machines using 2.0.37 with raid 990824 patches
and for me it's ROCK SOLID, even on SMP boards. I consider this a most
stable Linux with SW-RAID setup, but your mileage may vary. :-)
Egon Eckert
I'm using the 0.50 tools and RAID works but the 2.0.38 kernel was never
patched. The tools did not contain any info that specifically stated that a
patch was needed and for the most part, the tools work and I can get raid
running. However I am starting to see some strange behaviour such as
David Cooley wrote:
It's probably something to do with the fact that I'm on a Sparc Ultra 2
machine running Linux.
Didn't think Linux saw the drives differently between platforms, but I
guess it does.
I'm guessing the drives were orginally used under Solaris/SunOS? i.e. they had
a Sun disk
What are the consequences of mkraid --reallyforce
I need to test raid on my partitions
/dev/hde1 and /dev/hde2
i have configured the /etc/raidtab file as needed.
when i use mkraid /dev/md0
it tells me to try mkraid --force (i.e. reallyforce).
I have no data whatsoever on either of these
At 04:50 PM 11/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
What are the consequences of mkraid --reallyforce
I need to test raid on my partitions
/dev/hde1 and /dev/hde2
i have configured the /etc/raidtab file as needed.
when i use mkraid /dev/md0
it tells me to try mkraid --force (i.e. reallyforce).
I have no
Is there a procedure for adding more drives to a RAID system and increasing
the size of the partitions? We have mylex Accellaraid 250's (sp?) driving
the RAID. I am a little lost as to how to do it. I mean when and if the
Mysql server ever breaks 10-12 gig of data I would like to have an easy
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Shoggoth wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999, Francisco Jose Montilla wrote:
[Very Good stuff snipped]
- and raid level 0 sets for disk2 and disk4, as you don't care about
redundancy w/ index files (you can easily recreate them). I don't know if
using raid 0 in
Hi,
got a strange message:
Nov 4 01:13:37 nb010010143 kernel: raid5: bug: stripe-bh_new[0], sector 5180268
exists
Nov 4 01:13:37 nb010010143 kernel: raid5: bh c9069a20, bh_new c9069120
What does that mean, is it possible to fix (how?) and how severe is that ???
I use
21 matches
Mail list logo
