Hi,
I am hoping someone might help me understand why Linux is usually setup
a certain way.
Most Linux PC have only one disk drive yet it is recommended that the
disk be partitioned into many pieces (home, root, var, swap). I thought
this kind of setup would cause excessive disk head movement.
RedHat Linux 6.1 has the following warning:
http://www.redhat.com/support/hardware/intel/61/rh6.1-hcl-i.ld-5.html#ss5.6
5.6 RAID Contr ollers Known Issues:
The installation of Red Hat Linux's root partition onto a RAID device is
not supported.
--
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:27:59AM +, Glenn Hudson wrote:
The installation of Red Hat Linux's root partition onto a RAID device is
not supported.
Do you know what problems having the root partition on RAID will cause?
There are no problems, but the Redhat installer doesn't handle it.
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:46 AM
To: Glenn Hudson
Cc: Linux-RAID
Subject: Re: root on RAID
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:27:59AM +, Glenn Hudson wrote:
The installation of Red Hat Linux's root partition
-Original Message-
From: Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: root on RAID
RedHat Linux 6.1 has the following warning:
The installation of Red Hat Linux's root partition onto a
RAID device is not
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:42:01AM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
Mostly because it's (pardon my French) a bitch to recover from. RAID5 and
???
(although still not as easy as a plain mirror), while a stripe of two
mirrors (RAID01) is a real pain to recover from. Mostly this applies to
???
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:17:06 -0500, you 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 09:20:57 +0200, you 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
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 12:06 PM
To: Gregory Leblanc
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: root on RAID
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:42:01AM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
Mostly because it's (pardon my French)
Use tape! Raid shouldn't replace tapes, they serve different (but
sometimes similar) purposes.
Phil
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:38:11PM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
Are you talking about going from RAID to non-RAID?
Actually, I'm talking about OS failures, not disk failures. RAID
I know this is off-topic, but since it was brought up ;)
Why not use an old disk, outside of the RAID, for backups? I mount old
IDE drives for backups only: tarring the entire system to the backup
drive once a week, changed files daily. Seems to work better for me than
tapes which always had
Both of my replies are below.
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Gregory Leblanc; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Disk v. Tape Backup -- Re: root on RAID
I know this is off-topic, but since it
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 05:38:27PM +, Jeff Hill wrote:
I know this is off-topic, but since it was brought up ;)
Why not use an old disk, outside of the RAID, for backups? I mount old
IDE drives for backups only: tarring the entire system to the backup
drive once a week, changed files
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 02:56:57PM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
un-planned need to restore an entire system from tape. Usually the restores
that I do are because Joe User deleted his all important spreadsheet, and
NEEDS to have it back. I definately agree that RAID shouldn't (and can't)
I am trying to get RAID-1 running with dual SCSI drives.
I read the Software-RAID HOWTO and followed the steps outlined
there. However.. when I get to the part to run mkraid,
it returns the following..
# mkraid /dev/md0
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
disk 0:
-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 3:32 PM
To: Gregory Leblanc
Cc: 'Jeff Hill'; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Disk v. Tape Backup -- Re: root on RAID
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 02:56:57PM -0800,
-Original Message-
From: Pete Rossi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Need help with software RAID-1
I am trying to get RAID-1 running with dual SCSI drives.
I read the Software-RAID HOWTO and followed the steps
I think there is rarely a valid reason to split a single disk system into
multiple small partitions. In fact, the Multi-Disk HOWTO agrees:
In fact, for single physical drives this scheme offers very little
gains at all, other than making file growth monitoring easier
/dev/md0/dev/hda1 + /dev/hdc129.7 GBRAID-1
/dev/md1/dev/hda2 + /dev/hdc2 0.3 GBRAID-1
We use /dev/md0 for the root fs and /dev/md1 for swap. Why?
Because it takes about 90 minutes to remirror /dev/md0 and only
about 2 minutes to remirror /dev/md1. Since we cannot
Probably because the installer does not handle it. I have been working on
the Debian end of the same issue, and the problems pretty much amount to
this, based on the current potato snapshot:
1. The kernel has to be patched with the newest RAID v0.90 code and
rebuilt, and then put onto the first
Why are you backing up? What if your machine catches fire? What if your
office catches fire? What if someone steals your machine? What if your
power supply sends mains voltage to every device in the case?
-- Mike
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Jeff Hill wrote:
I know this is off-topic, but since
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael wrote:
/dev/md0/dev/hda1 + /dev/hdc129.7 GBRAID-1
/dev/md1/dev/hda2 + /dev/hdc2 0.3 GBRAID-1
We use /dev/md0 for the root fs and /dev/md1 for swap. Why?
Because it takes about 90 minutes to remirror /dev/md0 and only
about 2
Ed Schernau wrote:
No, it seems that it DOES do hw RAID, but with no
battery backup, onboard RAM, etc.
It has no onboard RAM so why would it need battery backup? :)
BTW, does it do striping (r5/r0) or only mirroring (r1) ?
--
+---| Netscape Communicator 4.x |---| Powered by Linux 2.2.x
You are missing that nasty "--absolute-paths" ("-P") switch on tar to
preserve the leading slash. It may or may not be what you want. In
general, a better approach is to tell tar to make a particular directory
the current directory before executing, using the "--directory" ("-C")
switch. For
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael wrote:
/dev/md0/dev/hda1 + /dev/hdc129.7 GBRAID-1
/dev/md1/dev/hda2 + /dev/hdc2 0.3 GBRAID-1
We use /dev/md0 for the root fs and /dev/md1 for swap. Why?
Because it takes about 90 minutes to remirror /dev/md0 and only
about 2
25 matches
Mail list logo
