I see that automatic reconstruction and all the other goodies are missing
from the 2.2 kernels. Will they be included in a later version?
Thanks
--
Francesco Potortì (researcher) Voice:+39-050-593 203 (op. 211)
Computer Networks GroupFax: +39-050-904052
CNUCE-C
Ok,
thanks for the answer; I didn't get in this conflict, but I wondered,
because it seemed that the raidtools are able to recognize the devices
on which raid is built and check if there are multiple devices instead
of only one.
For testing and some other things it may be a good idea to set up ra
Thanks for the many responses, everyone. Just so you know, the reason
I am creating a raid on a single disk is because I am testing the
raidtools before I put it on some larger file servers. I have run
into a new problem now. When I run raidstart I get an error. I first
created /etc/raidtab
Just a follow up:
> no luck. I finally ran a ksymoops and it seems raid0_map is the culprit.
in raid0.c, function raid0_map:
block = *rsector >> 1;
hash = conf->hash_table + block / conf->smallest->size;
Looks like a simple hash function to translate which zone a block falls in
Hello,
I am having trouble in installing Raid 5 (Using 3 8GB SCSI Drives)
I am running 2.2.7 kernel and using raidtools-19990309-0.90
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [1 linear] [2 raid0] [4 raid5]
read_ahead not set
md0 : inactive
md1 : inactive
md2 : inactive
md3 : inactive
# cat
> root@excel linux]# more /etc/raidtab
> raiddev /dev/md0
> # General parameters
> raid-level 0
> nr-raid-disks 2
> chunk-size 1024
>
Where is the persistent-superblock line?
RAID-0 used to default to no pe
I have done a similar setup on 2.0.36 (same version of raidtools &
patches, Redhat), three partitions on the same physical disk, in order
to get the hang of 0.90 before putting it on my production server. I
assume that's what you're (he's) doing.
It works with a bunch of partitions on t
Well, I didn't get a reject updating from 2.2.8 to 2.2.9, but looking, I
have manually merged this file before Also, I didn't test the patches
with 2.2.8, although 2.2.7 worked fine.
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 1999, A James Lewis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'
