- Original Message -
From: Alan Meadows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From past messages I've gotten the feeling that some people consider
2.2.10 unstable just as 2.2.9, with the corrupt filesystem issue. Does
anyone here have experience with 2.2.10 enough to know its stable, or
is anyone firm
Hi all ... i have a problem. Perhaps one of you can help me.
The problem is with the PTYs:
on using autopasswd [which i really need] i get the following error:
/usr/bin/autopasswd gietl xxx
spawn passwd gietl
open(slave pty): bad file number
parent: sync byte write: broken pipe
Perhaps you
Title: RE: Expect autopasswd
mmmkay, this list is about Linux-RAID.
Go to a linux-help mailing list.
Thank you,
--Bryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andreas Gietl
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 10:47 AM
To: Linux Raid
Greetings,
I'm running kernel 2.2.12pre8 with one raid1 device. Autostarting is
not working for me--in fact starting the raid by hand isn't working
either. This bit me hard today--can someone tell me what I did wrong?
I followed the instructions in the new RAID howto, here is my raidtab:
Bear in mind that SCSI controllers *can* freeze entirely when they
encounter errors. This depends greatly on the brand and model as some
are far more fault tolerant than others, having little to do with the
actual RAID implementation in Linux. You might try a different
controller...
--
Jeremy
backwards this time. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rd/c0d{0,1} bs=512 count=100
what's /dev/rd/? devfs or a RAID controller?
it's the raid controller (Mylex DAC1164P). First time I've dealt with
something that put its devices there :)
are you running the bonnies in singleuser? if so cpu util
What is the rationale for running sw raid0 over hw raid0,
using a single hw raid controller? I don't quite see why
it should be superior to the all-hw solution.
Now, if you have multiple hw raid controllers, or if you have
anemic controllers and want to do sw raid5 over hw raid0,
or
Im using the two channels from my motherboard, and two channels from one
Abit HotRod 66 PCI controller card.
Ive heard good things about the promise card, but dont know wether you can
have more than one of them on a machine.
You can have 2 devices on each channel (i.e. one master and one slave),
C. R. Oldham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 19 August 1999 09:53:
In another reply I got there was an indication that I might need to resize
the filesystem on /dev/md0 after I do this since the persistent superblocks
hide at the end of the /dev/md0 partition, correct? How much do I need to
On Aug 18, 4:52pm, Marc Mutz wrote:
} Subject: Re: Some questions.
Good day to everyone interested in Linux raid. I hope that this note
is helpful to your day.
You can try to patch 2.2.11 with the 2.2.10 patch. It should apply more
or less cleanly. The rest can be corrected by hand. Or use
On Aug 18, 4:10pm, Alan Meadows wrote:
} Subject: RAID1 over RAID0 on 2.2.10
Hello,
From past messages I've gotten the feeling that some people consider
2.2.10 unstable just as 2.2.9, with the corrupt filesystem issue. Does
anyone here have experience with 2.2.10 enough to know its
Perhaps you are saturating the PCI bus. The cpu gets more utilized when
it doesn't have much time to read/write memory through the PCI bus. And
if you are pushing 54KB/s through PCI for disk data, that takes alot of
the PCI bandwidth.
Even our 4-way P6 200 machines could keep 40 MB/sec
I followed the instructions in the new RAID howto, here is my raidtab:
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 1
nr-raid-disks 2
nr-spare-disks 0
chunk-size 4096
persistent-superblock 0
snip
Other messages in my syslog seem to indicate the
If the array does not have persistent superblocks is there a way I can
create them without destroying the data?
No. Best bet: backup the data on the array, and then recreate it
with "persistent-superblock 1" this time.
WAIT!!
I thought there was a procedure that would convert the OLD
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 12:55:10PM -0400, James Manning wrote:
My bonnie results for raid5 getting done in hardware have been horrible.
Admittedly, this is with a single card (until my shipment comes in)
so it's 4 500MHz Xeon's using MMX vs. a single StrongARM 233 (no SIMD)
in the XOR battle.
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Jan Edler wrote:
It isn't reporting 99% of 4 Xeons, but 99% of one Xeon.
Bonnie just takes cpu/elapsed*100.
it also depends on the load. if bonnie is the only real load on the
machine then cpu util will be 99%.
james: does it affect responsiveness? and if you run a
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 10:39:01PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Jan Edler wrote:
It isn't reporting 99% of 4 Xeons, but 99% of one Xeon.
Bonnie just takes cpu/elapsed*100.
it also depends on the load. if bonnie is the only real load on the
machine then cpu util will
I want to use RAID-1 system on Sparcstaion 5, and I install RedHat6.0 for SPARC
and install raidtools using raidtools-19990724-0.90.tar.gz.
When I executed mkraid, I received a following message.
kernel: mkraid[399]: Unimplemented SPARC system call 140
I found the following statement in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dropping each of the 2 channels down to 4 drives started dropping
the performance...barely. I'm still getting 99.6% CPU util on s/w
raid0 over 2 h/w raid0's scares me, but I'll try the HZ and NR_STRIPES
settings later on. I'm getting worried I'm not bottlenecking
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, James Manning wrote:
What is the rationale for running sw raid0 over hw raid0,
using a single hw raid controller? I don't quite see why
it should be superior to the all-hw solution.
Now, if you have multiple hw raid controllers, or if you have
anemic controllers
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 11:03:09AM +0900, Akihiro Okamura wrote:
I want to use RAID-1 system on Sparcstaion 5, and I install RedHat6.0 for SPARC
and install raidtools using raidtools-19990724-0.90.tar.gz.
When I executed mkraid, I received a following message.
kernel: mkraid[399]:
21 matches
Mail list logo
