yes- we use raid0 on two ide disks for cacheing. i dont recommend that for
anything important though (/, /usr, /var, etc.) we have a big /squid that
we use for raid0, everthing else is raid1 on the same two disks.
doubling your chance of downtime due to hd failure seems irresponsible of
your own
Define #include in setup.c.
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Chris Price wrote:
>
>
> Anyone else using this patch successfully? The 19990108 works fine
> with a pristine 2.0.36 source, but the 19990128 compile fails. I can
> post the errors, but wanted to ask first if there was an obvious known
> re
I've been reading the mailing list for some time but haven't come across
anybody using IDE drives in a stripping configuration so here goes. I have
an 80486DX4 100Mhz Intel clone box and two identical Western Digital 850MB
drives. What I would like to do is put one of these drives on each IDE
Anyone else using this patch successfully? The 19990108 works fine
with a pristine 2.0.36 source, but the 19990128 compile fails. I can
post the errors, but wanted to ask first if there was an obvious known
reason for this patch not to work.
Thanks
Chris
> "EXT2-fs error (device 09:00): ext2_new_block: Free blocks count
> corrupted for block group 259"
> in the log.
> - ext2fs problem
Probably unrelated, but I got this error using the DAC960 hardware raid
driver, linux kernel 2.2.0-pre9, and knfsd a couple of times about 2
months ago, and not
I´m running the december raid patches on a lightly but constantly loaded
nfs soft-raid5 fileserver. Until now there wasn´t any problem during
normal operation, but I just got lots of:
"EXT2-fs error (device 09:00): ext2_new_block: Free blocks count
corrupted for block group 259"
in the log.
the e
