There is kind of hot-swap support and auto-rebuild in the
raidtools-0.90; choice between external drives and internal drives for
raid is rather complicated but there is no difference in speed if you
are using the internal or external connector of a raid-controller
(correct me if I am wrong).
But
Hi
The SuSE kernel is a "special" kernel for their distribution only. I
read some time ago, that the "SuSE-kernels" are patched by them before
they are released on their CDs - but I didn't find any information what
patches they have added. Most times I think they just add some new
drivers, but
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 02:55:21PM +0100, Piete Brooks wrote:
I'm a fan of SW RAID (a motherboard with 3 LVD busses, 2 EIDE busses,
and 1 W bus kind of satisfies our disk IO requirements), but I've
being pressured to buy some HW
Hi,
- Suppose you have all the raid discs on hot-swapable removable
kits.
- Suppose you use an active terminator hooked on the last cable
connector.
- Suppose you have a *non* hot-swap capable controller.
Will it be possible to hot-swap discs? I mean,
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Joe Beauchamp wrote:
With some good advice from readers, I was able to get raid going. I wanted
to try the "booting with lilo" thing, but lilo doesn't like device 900.
Has someone really been able to put everything on raid except /boot? How
so, if so? -- thanks! --
Hm , I have not the possibilty to set up a hw-raid and mostly not the
time to do so in order for testing and comparisons, but I have a
suggestion towards hw- and sw-raids.
I am using sw-raids on systems like you described with just more RAM and
controllers on it running linux-2.0.36 (will switch
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Brian Leeper wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, CN Liu wrote:
too) ran on several IWill P55XUB mainboards without any problem.
However, Slackware 3.5 (kernel 2.0.34) boot disks can not even boot on
FYI, every single IWIll motherboard I've run into has required a BIOS
I have tried running a test using dd if=/dev/zero ...
What does a message on the console
ll_rw_block: device 08:01: only 1024-char blocks implemented (3072)
mean?
This happens sometimes and the resulting files do not compare.
Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17/04/99 21:45:20
On Fri, 16 Apr
"A.W.Loots" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
how can i make my Software RAID-1 system bootable ?
Now I use a bootdisk and type "linux root=901" at startup.
But I want to write boot.b to the MBR of my md0 device.
You can not. You have to a have a standard physical partition for the
boot files (MBR,
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Steve Costaras wrote:
Has anyone created any patches against the new 2.2.6 kernel, the latest
I've seen is against v2.2.3 which doesn't apply cleanly against the newer
kernels.
i'll release it Real Soon. (probably this weekend)
Also, Just a side question, what's the
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Dave Cinege wrote:
Lilo (aka absolute sector offset) is the old, dumb, way to boot.
Use grub. http://www.uruk.org/~erich/grub/
Premade grub disk is here: ftp://ftp.psychosis.com/linux/
a bootloader that can read a kernel from a linux raid device would be
really
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Dave Cinege wrote:
Lilo (aka absolute sector offset) is the old, dumb, way to boot.
Use grub. http://www.uruk.org/~erich/grub/
Premade grub disk is here: ftp://ftp.psychosis.com/linux/
a bootloader that can read a kernel from a linux raid
At 19:19 17.04.99 +0100, you wrote:
yes it can.
Martin Bene had a patch for this. It adds a an option to mark a disk
in /etc/raidtab as failed, so that you can start the array in
degraded state.
Careful - My patch was designed for the redundant raid types 1/4/5, I don't
think it'll be of any
do not use raid0 for part of your fs. i ONLY use raid0 for news spools.
raid0 DOUBLES (at least) the chances of total fs loss. buy a bigger disk.
allan
"so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max Cavalera
"m. allan noah" wrote:
do not use raid0 for part of your fs. i ONLY use raid0 for news spools.
raid0 DOUBLES (at least) the chances of total fs loss. buy a bigger disk.
Hmm. I've run a 5 drive hardware RAID0 on my multi boot workstation for years
now. I guess you mean this only in the
yes, but raid0 offers you no data protection. you have been lucky,
hardware controller, software, or otherwise. raid0 is dangerous for
important filesystems.
allan
"so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max
Hello,
I've successfully installed a software RAID 5 array using kernel 2.2.3
and the 0.90 patch and tools. I have posted the results of this
endeavor, including benchmarks at:
http://www.idiom.com/~tbyrd/softraid/index.html
It might answer some of the questions I've seen here lately
"m. allan noah" wrote:
yes, but raid0 offers you no data protection.
Neither does a single drive. (Nor does RAID1/5 if two drives fail.)
you have been lucky, hardware controller, software, or otherwise.
raid0 is dangerous for important filesystems.
I fail to see your logic.
--
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Francisco Jose Montilla wrote:
The reason is that on a master-slave setup, the slave disc is controlled
by the master. If on a [hda-hdc]+[hdb-hdd] raid 0+1 the master device of
*any* IDE controller fails, the slave will inmediatly fail also (I'd bet
it surelly will
19 matches
Mail list logo
