Hi
(As I said before) I don't know much about HW-raids on Intel-based (PC)
computers but I think the raid-controller is able to add the new disk to
the existing raid; referring to the raid systems of HP it would start to
"insert" the new space into the existing filesystem (HP ones do so).
If
Actually, this is no longer true with the current kernels raidtools patch.
Swaping on to
a RAID device is ok. I have several systems here currently doing it on
RAID-1 devices
without any problems whatsoever.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Gulcu Ceki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Gulcu Ceki wrote:
On the other hand, if the intent is higher reliability, then one can
swap on a RAID-1 partition.
i wonder, can you have your swap on a raid5 partition? raid-1 seems
a bit of a waste of hdd space.
--
Paul Jakma
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recently upgraded one of my computers to RedHat 6.0 (which includes raid
.90). Before the upgrade I had 2 4.1GB SCSI Hdd's combined into a linear RAID
array (created with raidtools-0.50beta10-2) .. after the upgrade I went to
re-instate this array and put the following into my
Hi
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
I think, that moment your machine starts swapping you´ll get some
performance problems which wouldn't be solved by using "raid-swap"
instead of swap on a single disk or whatever. Think of the meaning of
swap
Get the latest raidtools and alpha patches from
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/ and you should be set. Worked
like charm for me.
- anders
-Original Message-
From: Charles Barrasso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9. toukokuuta 1999 19:54
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
If the swap partition becomes inaccessible, the machine crashes. that
means if a disk goes down with a swap partition on it, you are dead.
If the partition is on "raid" and
Perfect sense if you want a HA (High Availability) system. In the case here
I don't want the system failing if a disk dies on me. All volumes here are
on one form of RAID or another. Which gives me the opportunity to swap
out a bad disk at MY convince instead of being screwed when a disk dies
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Dietmar Stein wrote:
Hi
A question in between: what sense does it make to have the swap onto
raid?
I think, that moment your machine starts swapping you´ll get some
performance problems which wouldn't be solved by using "raid-swap"
instead of swap on a
I downloaded the latest version of the raidutils and compiled them but still
the same error, is there something else I should have goten?
charles
[root@news /root]# /sbin/raidstart -a
/dev/md0: Invalid argument
As ever, look in /var/log/messages ...
I suspect you should be using "mkraid /dev/md0" ...
As ever, look in /var/log/messages ...
/var/log/messages contains:
May 9 16:19:07 news kernel: (read) sdb1's sb offset: 4193152 [events:
4b271a7d]
May 9 16:19:07 news kernel: md: invalid raid superblock magic on sdb1
May 9 16:19:07 news kernel: md: sdb1 has invalid sb, not importing!
May 9 16:19:07 news kernel: md: invalid raid superblock magic on sdb1
Not surprising -- there is no SB ...
I suspect you should be using "mkraid /dev/md0" ...
But if I did mkraid /dev/md0 wouldn't that destroy all the data on the array?
Not under 0.90 as fasr as I know -- as has been
Hi!
cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid0 sdd1[1] sdc1[0] 17782528 blocks 16k chunks
unused devices: none
Yesterday:
sdc and sdd have only one partition, but the LED of sdd (and the
hostadapter) lits up every half second - even if nothing is done
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:01:21PM -0400, Charles Barrasso thusly shaped the electrons:
I downloaded the latest version of the raidutils and compiled them but still
the same error, is there something else I should have goten?
My guess is the "latest" raidtools are already installed, the
From the man page:
It looks in its configuration file for the md
devices mentioned on the command line, and initializes
those arrays.
Note that initializing RAID devices destroys all of the
data on the consituent devices.
Not under
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Charles Barrasso wrote:
I recently upgraded one of my computers to RedHat 6.0 (which includes raid
.90). Before the upgrade I had 2 4.1GB SCSI Hdd's combined into a linear RAID
array (created with raidtools-0.50beta10-2) .. after the upgrade I went to
re-instate this
so what shoud I run? mkraid /dev/md0 ?
That is my impression.
or mkraid /dev/md0 --force-resync -f ??
With linear, there is no "sync" ...
what do I need to do to access my data?
My impression is that you need:
mkraid /dev/md0
mount /dev/md0
Hm,
I understand the necessary of redundancy; but isn't it the same if you do a swapoff -a
or swap-disks dies on a system?
What I have in mind is the thing, that the system should not swap at all, so that it
is necessary to have as much memory (RAM) as possible.
Greetings, Dietmar
-
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We know raid1 works, but would swap on raid5? i hope it would, as
raid5 is less wasteful of disk space than raid1.
But the couple of hundred megs you need for swap (at maximum) don't
really amount to anything in a big system. raid1 is faster than
raid5.
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
