As a side note, does anyone know why the hell RedHat put alpha patches in
their production release? Out of curiosity, did they ask anyone on this
The alpha patches are better - more reliable , less buggy and have more
features than
the standard raid included with the stock linux kernel in
Francesco Potorti` wrote:
I remember having seen on this list a
message saying that making a swap
file on a filesystem residing over a raid device was not possible/reliable
(because of a race condition in the kernel?).
Unfortunately, my own archive of the list only contains a pass-by reference
I remember having seen on this list a message saying that making a swap
file on a filesystem residing over a raid device was not possible/reliable
(because of a race condition in the kernel?).
The kernel will automagically stripe all swap partitions given. Ie, if
you tell
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:32:04PM +0200, Francesco Potorti` wrote:
Hi,
I remember having seen on this list a message saying that making a swap
file on a filesystem residing over a raid device was not possible/reliable
(because of a race condition in the kernel?).
swap on raid
On Sat, 22 May 1999, Fred Reimer wrote:
Second, where can I get patches for the alpha raid tools that RedHat chose
to put in their version of the kernel that will work under 2.2.9? The
latest official alpha patches appear to be for 2.2.6. Most of the patches
appear to be successful, with a
Unfortunately, my own archive of the list only contains a pass-by
reference
to such a discussion, and I cannot find archives of the list.
May some kind soul point me in the right direction? Does an archive of
this list exist?
Try
http://www.kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/ghindex.html
or
Osma,
RAID-1 does read balancing which may(?) be better than striping. Each
read request is checked against the previous request, if it is
contiguious with the previous request, it uses the same device,
otherwise it switches to the next mirror. This process cycles through
the mirrors (n-way
Hi
September 1997 was a long time ago; raidtools 0.90 gives you a lot of
functionality.
The raidtab (for raidtools 0.90) offers the options of spare disks; why
don't you
have a _TRY_ on adding a disk to the raidtab?
Backing up data or using a "test box" is recommended !
Greetings, Dietmar
D. Lance Robinson wrote:
Osma,
RAID-1 does read balancing which may(?) be better than striping. Each
read request is checked against the previous request, if it is
contiguious with the previous request, it uses the same device,
otherwise it switches to the next mirror. This process
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 07:13:16PM +0200, Joachim Zobel wrote:
At 23:17 23.05.99 +0200, you wrote:
raid-1 also increases read performance. It can do reads just like raid0,
because both disks contain the same data. It doesn't read the same block
from both disks and compare, instead it reads
The bottom line: Read performance for a RAID-1 device is better than a
single (JBOD) device. The bigger the n in n-way mirroring gives better
read performance, but slightly worse write performance.
But using n-way mirrors will also increase cpu utilization during reads
-
or am I
I've moved the PCI cards, and the cables are well withen spec (Max length is 12m
on LVD) I have literally changed out all the hardware and the problem reoccurs,
yet another chain in the same box with the same equipment works perfectly.
I'm pondering trying 2.2.7 to see if that has any bearing.
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Bobby Hitt wrote:
DPT
ICP Vortex
I just returned an DPT 2044UW controller and caching module, performance was
AWFUL. Before I buy a ICP Vortex controller, I wanted to see if anyone knows
about any other alternatives.
There's Mylex. AFAIK, of the three, DPT is at the
This is the /proc/mdstat output on a particular kernel 2.0.36 +
raid0145-19990421 system equipped with six SCSI disks, configured as
(multiple) 5-disk RAID-5 plus one hot spare disk. However, it's not
immediately obvious to me from the output WHICH of the disks is the
spare (I know that it's
14 matches
Mail list logo
