Hi all
This is my first experience with software-raid and I would like to ask a
couple of questions.
I have two 20GB EIDE HD.
Currently I have implemented raid this way (i.e. partioning the Hds):
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid1
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Seth Vidal wrote:
hi folks,
ext2resize claims to be able resize ext2 partitions w/o destroying data.
While there is evidence of this on normal drives and hw raid drives too.
I'd like to know if it will work on sw raid drives.
anyone know?
The filesystem resides on a
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Since this thread has popped up again, here's the URL I was referring to in
my previous email:
http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
You can resize RAID0 arrays, but so far not RAID5 arrays. 8(
Correct.
RAID-0 resizing, and
I've currently using ata6 with kernel 2.3.48 , and I also have fasttrak66
card, I've send email to promise (found the person's emailed in source
card, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) he has mentioned that 'maybe' at some point
promise will support the fastrak66 raid feature in linux, as binary loaded
hello,
my computer is go down ( power failure )
after reboot
cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [3 raid1]
read_ahead not set
md0 : inactive sda2 sdb2 10241920 blocks
md1 : inactive sda7 sdb6 2049792 blocks
md2 : inactive
md3 : inactive
/sbin/ckraid /etc/raid1.conf
ckraid version 0.36.4
parsing
Hi,
I know it's offtopic but this is a hopeless situation. a fdisk
operation had caused a broken partition table and a lost ext2fs.
The start of partition is not known exactly. I tried some magic and
scrolls like debugfs and e2fsck with alternative superblocks, but i can
not
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 03:40:42PM -0800, Peter Andersen wrote:
I was looking at LVM and wondering what advantage it would give me. I
like the idea of the volume groups and logical volumes but what does LVM
give me other than the ability to resize/change volumes?
LVM snapshot is a nice
I've been bit by this fact. I had one disk fail -- the spare kicked in --
then during the resync got ANOTHER bad sector an an area of the disk that
wasn't used much (tail end of the thing). The whole RAID hosed then
(RAID5). I was able to recover but it was down for a while.
RAID resync
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Martin Bene wrote:
At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 out of 4 disks were out
of sync.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:36:52AM -0600, Bill Carlson wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a different project, how bad would it be
to setup RAID 5 to allow for 2 (or more) failures in an array? Or is this
handled under a different class of RAID (ignoring things like RAID 5 over
mirrored
It is a very bad idea to prevent resyncs after a volume has possibly becoming out of
sync.
It is important to have the disks in sync--even if the data is the wrong data. The way
raid-1's balancing works, you don't know what disk will be read. For the same block,
the
system may read different
Thanks to all, it worked!
Hi Bill,
Thursday, March 30, 2000, 4:36:52 PM, you wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a different project, how bad would
it be to setup RAID 5 to allow for 2 (or more) failures in an array?
Or is this handled under a different class of RAID (ignoring things
like RAID 5 over mirrored
Mike Bilow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. The reason your log stops is because your SCSI bus stops. If you have
another machine running syslogd, try pointing your log across the network;
see the section about "Remote Machine" in the "man syslog.conf" page.
When debugging bizarre problems, I
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 11:59:24AM +0300, Mustafa Bodur wrote:
The start of partition is not known exactly. I tried some magic and
scrolls like debugfs and e2fsck with alternative superblocks, but i can
not get the partition back. i can see the disk content if i access raw,
even i got a
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:36:52AM -0600, Bill Carlson wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a different project, how bad would it be
to setup RAID 5 to allow for 2 (or more) failures in an array? Or is this
handled under a different class of
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:21:45PM -0600, Bill Carlson wrote:
1+5 would still fail on 2 drives if those 2 drives where both from the
same RAID 1 set. The wasted space becomes more than N/2, but it might
worth it for the HA aspect. RAID 6 looks
There was a discussion about LVM, reiserfs,... , and i need the URL or the address
for the mailinglist for fs-devel the File-system development group.
Does someone have the URL?
Thomas
I agree, if the two disks are truly out of sync
then the only thing you can do is copy the most recent
data to the out of date disk.
But what I'm seeing is that the two disks are in
sync (at least according to the serial numbers in the
superblock), but due to the SB_CLEAN flag not having
been
On 30-Mar-2000 Luca Berra wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 11:59:24AM +0300, Mustafa Bodur wrote:
The start of partition is not known exactly. I tried some magic and
scrolls like debugfs and e2fsck with alternative superblocks, but i
can
not get the partition back. i can see the disk
The event counter (and serial number) only indicates that the superblock is the most
current.
The SB_CLEAN bit is cleared when an array gets started, and is set when it is stopped
(this
automatically happens during a normal shutdown.) But, if the system crashes or the
power gets
yanked, the
21 matches
Mail list logo
