i notice in version.c of the current raidtools package it checks
/dev/md/0.
Is /dev/md/x (x=1..15)an alternative structure used on some
distributions, or is it an old way of doing things?
I just wondered as ive never seen the devices this way before.
Thanks
Glenn McGrath
[ Saturday, December 4, 1999 ] Mika Kuoppala wrote:
My patch does this 'closest serves' thing exactly. With few
exceptions...like the logic to kick idling disks in the game.
I'll read over the patch and see what it does... It should certainly
(and your results have agreed with this) be a
not sure, but rumor has it that quota code is problematic with devices not
directly in the /dev directory.
as far as raid is concerned, the device should be able to be anywhere, so
long as it has the right major and minor node numbers...right?
-tcl.
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Glenn McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Glenn McGrath wrote:
i notice in version.c of the current raidtools package it checks
/dev/md/0.
Is /dev/md/x (x=1..15)an alternative structure used on some
distributions, or is it an old way of doing things?
I just wondered as ive never seen the devices this way
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not sure, but rumor has it that quota code is problematic with devices not
directly in the /dev directory.
as far as raid is concerned, the device should be able to be anywhere, so
long as it has the right major and minor node numbers...right?
I
I believe this is for people using the devfs which has both a /dev/md[0-9]+ and
/dev/md/[0-9]+
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:08:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not sure, but rumor has it that quota code is problematic with devices not
directly in the /dev directory.
as far as raid is
Hi,
I am trying to configure a
raid1 on my Linux box.My system configuration is as follows:
Linux kernel: 2.0.36-07
two IDE disks: hda and hdc
etc/mdtab file: /dev/md0 /dev/hda2
/dev/hdc1
and the file /proc/mdstat looks fine.
But when I tried:
mdadd -a and I got the following error:
Anyone not using Parity or ECC'd RAM in their servers deserve the inevitable
lack of sleep that is the ultimate result. Given sufficient time, and the
huge number of transistors in a 1GB RAM system, failures are inevitable over
time. Workstations are almost as bad, but servers are critical.
