I have RAID-1 running on Redhat 6.0 using two EIDE 10 gig hard disks. I
have installed Raidtools 0.90-3. At this point I was able to make
everything function exactly as expected. I'm a bit surprised by this
because at no point did I ever install any patches.
All the Raidtools commands work fin
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Dong Hu wrote:
> Now I want to change the configuration to raid0,
> so I edit the /etc/raidtab file,
> issue mkraid --force /dev/md0,
I suppose you did stop the raid device ('raidstop /dev/md0') first? Then I
think you should use --really-force (this is not in the document
I am only using a partition of the disk (sda3, sdb3) for the raid,
so I don't want to reinstall everything. Any other way to wipe out
the persistent "superblocks"? I tried to "mke2fs" on the patition, which did
not work.
When I tested "raidsetfaulty, raidhotremove, raidhotadd" on raid1,
I also g
Sorry for the mundane problem, but I have absolutely no clue why this
doesn't work. I have 3 machines successfully running the Linux RAID
stuff, but this one "just won't work."
Mandrak (Redhat) 6.1 stock install
kernel 2.2.13-4mdk
raidtools-19990824-0.90
{94} root@bleeder:~$ cat /etc/raidtab
ra
> Swap on raid1 IS possible with version 0.90.
What's more interesting for me: how about swap on RAID-5 ?
I currently run a setup with 4 SCSI HDDs with SW-RAID5 and root-fs on md0.
Each of these HDDs currently has a std swap partition and fstab swap entry
with same priority (so kernel automagic
This (almost same) problem happened to me as well. It was solved with a
wipe of all information from the disk by using DOS fdisk to eliminate the
partitions and overwrite the MBR with fdisk /mbr . That worked and I was able
to create the new raid configurations.
Could it be that the "persiste
I am testing raid tools on linux and I have a problem.
I have two same SCSI harddisk and have one same size
partition on each harddisk, sda3 and sdb3.
I configured sda3 and sdb3 to a raid 1(mirror) with no problem.
Now I want to change the configuration to raid0,
so I edit the /etc/raidtab fil
There are various conditions to doing this safely which, if not properly
understood, can lead to problems very much worse than the cure.
1) Even hardware RAID caches a lot of indices and the like in volitile RAM
(it's a performance issue). Depending on implementation this may either be
system RAM
There should not be any problems with this, it will look (and to Linux
behave) like a normal disk. If you have a very old version of Linux which
doesn't support LUNs, there may be problems (disk presents itself as ID0,
lunX).
Kent R. Nilsen
> Hello all ,
>
> I have heard people mentioning that
Hello all ,
I have heard people mentioning that running the OS on a RAID device is a
bad idea , why is this ?
We have an external SCSI raid controller that presents itself to the
system as a SCSI hard drive (/dev/sda)
Would i be right in assuming that putting the OS on this is not a
problem as th
Thank you Martin. I'm doing this now
Take care.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: David Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Best way to set up swap for high availability?
> At 1
> DL> "/boot=/dev/md?" line which was suggested in an earlier thread? I
> DL> don't see how this works. Going back to Dirk Lutzebaeck's problem
> DL> with this, he used "boot=/dev/md0". /dev/md0 is a mirror of
> DL> /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1. Why then does lilo try to install to
> DL> /dev/sda and /
At 14:19 23.11.99 -0800, David Cunningham wrote:
>The issue is RAID-1 swap. I'm a little unclear as to which method to use to
>ensure best availability for my server. Currently I have two 10 gig EIDE
>drives with identical partitions set up as follows:
Swap on raid1 IS possible with version 0.
At 06:05 24.11.99 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
>At 10:55 AM 11/24/99 GMT, Marc Haber wrote:
>>I wrote this two weeks ago without getting a single comment. What we
>>have here is a situation in the RAID 5 code that WILL eat ALL data on
>>a RAID 5 array on a single disk failure. Why have RAID 5 in the fi
At 13:16 24.11.99 +0100, Dirk Lutzebaeck wrote:
>Soenke Lange writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've some problems with lilo and the root device.
> > My lilo.conf:
> > boot=/dev/md0
> > install=/boot/boot.b
> > map=/boot/map
> > vga=normal
> > delay=20
> >
> > image=/mnt/boot/bzImage-2.0.38
> > ro
15 matches
Mail list logo
