Chuck Clayton wrote:
On the subject of creating and booting from a Raid1
device, I have read the
nano-howto that came RaidTools version .090. I still have some
questions
with regard to the setting up and need for the /root partitions.
Can anyone
give me some additional information on this
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i'm just testing at the moment to see if it's feasible. Anyway,
i never mentioned an amount of swap, i didn't say anything about
384mb. I actually have 4 partitions of 40MB = 160MB total. After
RAID5 - 120MB, which is reasonable.
Funny, you should
Hi,
the problem you have could be resolved like a new installation on a root
raid partition: try to read the latest version of the software raid howto:
http://www.ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
See the section about booting on raid.
Have fun!
Adolfo Mussi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Kent Nilsen wrote:
Installing this card in a Linux server, but disk initialization is
slw. Has anyone had any experience with it? It's been working for 9
hours now, increasing the %complete by one very slowly...
I assume the SCSI chain is properly
I don't think the 128Meg swap limit applies any more!
On 15 Jul 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, i'm just testing at the moment to see if it's feasible. Anyway,
i never mentioned an amount of swap, i didn't say anything about
384mb. I actually
Kevin Myer wrote:
Also, some clients can only accurately see 2Gb partitions.
You can tell samba to lie about the amount of disk space. The client
will think it is a 2Gb partition (or whatever you set
"max disk size" to) even though it is bigger.
Mogens
--
Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg
After reading this thread on swap and RAID, I have the following remarks:
1. With kernel 2.2.x you can use swap partitions larger than 128MB (this
was actually true starting with the 2.1.x developemtn kernels)
2. The kernel automatically stripes across equal priority swap spaces.
(from the
Marc Mutz wrote:
MadHat wrote:
A James Lewis wrote:
I don't think the 128Meg swap limit applies any more!
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel
Is there a resource that provides info on the latest raidtools. I can't
seem to get a raid 0 device up with the 0.90 tools. I had no problems with
the 0.3d tools.
Thanks,
Rob Jones
--
Rob Jones, Network Administrator,
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel right now). Can you point me to a page or kernel
source that says you can use more that 128M, I can't find it. Thanks.
You may
Helge Hafting wrote:
I think it is possible to create swap 'spaces' larger than 128M, but it
will only take advantage of the first 128M (but I can't find an exact
answer in the kernel right now). Can you point me to a page or kernel
source that says you can use more that 128M, I can't
You would get good performance if you used a multi-channel controler.
(.02) - Andy
I get really bad performance with the PERC2-SC (single channel)
controller,
using the Bonnie benchmark.
In fact a Pentium with 64 Mbytes and an IDE controller with a singel
disk
outperforms the measured
"Andrew B. Cramer" wrote:
You would get good performance if you used a multi-channel controler.
(.02) - Andy
I see no reason to require the use of multiple channels to get good
performance. I am using an eXtremeRAID controller from Mylex. I built
a machine with the 3 channel version of
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Andrew B. Cramer wrote:
You would get good performance if you used a multi-channel controler.
(.02) - Andy
I doubt it -- I got about the same performance with a 3-channel version of
the same card. Search dejanews for details, or ask me and I'll resend my
last post.
14 matches
Mail list logo
