> -Original Message-
> From: Vinny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:22 PM
> To: Linux Raid
> Subject: Which raid version?
>
> Out of curiosity,
> which raid version comes with RedHat 6.2?
> 0.90 or the new mingo stuff?
They are the same thing, the "new mingo
Out of curiosity,
which raid version comes with RedHat 6.2?
0.90 or the new mingo stuff?
--
Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xaymaca Studios http://www.blendermania.com
> -Original Message-
> From: The coolest guy you know [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 3:50 AM
> To: Brian D. Haymore
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: adaptec 2940u2w hangups
>
>
> "Brian D. Haymore" wrote:
> >
> > U2W can actually be LVD as well. My M
"Brian D. Haymore" wrote:
>
> U2W can actually be LVD as well. My Mylex eXtremeRAID 1164 card is U2W
> and LVD so just saying U2W is for sure LVD or SE is wrong. Read the
> manual or read the specs on the manufactures web site.
>
Pardon me for just saying "the U2W" when I meant the entire "29
The coolest guy you know wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> >
> > > Also, make sure you have active (not passive) termination.
> >
> > Since I am no SCSI guru, can someone please explain, how to determine
> > which is active and which is passiv
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> > Also, make sure you have active (not passive) termination.
>
> Since I am no SCSI guru, can someone please explain, how to determine
> which is active and which is passive?
>
> I went to the computer store, asked for
> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Eriksson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 3:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: adaptec 2940u2w hangups
...
> This is what makes this so annoying. It's rather tedious sitting around
> waiting for a box t
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, David Holl wrote:
> These are multiprocessor machines? Have you tried running on only one
> CPU? (vaguely recalling messages many months ago about multiprocessor
> troubles)
No, haven't tried that. But I just might, even though we need the extra power
from a second CPU...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> > Also, make sure you have active (not passive) termination.
>
> Since I am no SCSI guru, can someone please explain, how to determine
> which is active and which is passive?
>
> I went to the computer store, asked for
My thanks to Erich for helping me out with this. The explicit
directions below were all I needed. I am now running RAID5 on the
patched 2.2.14 kernel, with the Promise Ultra66. Erich deserves his "2
cents"!
I was worried about just swapping in the Ultra card for the EIDE Max
card, but to my pl
Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Subject: Re: adaptec 2940u2w hangups
> >
> > My latest attempt _may_ bear some fruit. I tried lowering the
> > speed from
> > 80Mb to 40Mb through the controller bios (thanks to C Polisher for
Yes, that is what I thought too. If slowing the bus down causes the
problems to disappear, it's almost certainly a cabling or termination issue.
Cheers,
Chris
- Original Message -
From: "Gregory Leblanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 2:28 PM
These are multiprocessor machines? Have you tried running on only one
CPU? (vaguely recalling messages many months ago about multiprocessor
troubles)
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Mikael Eriksson wrote:
-On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
-
-> Are you SURE it's not a cabling issue? I've had 294
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: adaptec 2940u2w hangups
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
>
> > Also, make sure you have active (not passive) terminati
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: adaptec 2940u2w hangups
>
> You're problems occur only with RAID and the 2940U2W?
>
> I was told it should be a SCSI
> -Original Message-
> From: Carruth, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 9:03 AM
> To: 'raid'
> Subject: panic: B_FREE inserted into queues on kernel 2.2.14
>
> I hope that this is not my second post to this list, if so I
> apologize!
> (I went and looked at
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> Also, make sure you have active (not passive) termination.
Since I am no SCSI guru, can someone please explain, how to determine
which is active and which is passive?
I went to the computer store, asked for a SCSI terminator and got it. It
has three l
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I've also noticed a few other postings about problems/hangups with 2940/AIC79xx
> on Linux RAID, so it seems we're not alone with this problem.
>
> Does anyone have any kind of information as to the status of this. Is the
> bug(s) identified?
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> Are you SURE it's not a cabling issue? I've had 2940U2w cards act strangely
> both under Linux and NT when there were problems with cables or terminators.
> I've gotten into the habit of using SCA drive cages and keeping the LVD
> cable lengths to a mi
You're problems occur only with RAID and the 2940U2W?
I was told it should be a SCSI problem, not a RAID problem. So, I quit
trying to debug RAID issues and went on to SCSI possibilities. Maybe the
guru was wrong?
My latest attempt _may_ bear some fruit. I tried lowering the speed from
80Mb to
Are you SURE it's not a cabling issue? I've had 2940U2w cards act strangely
both under Linux and NT when there were problems with cables or terminators.
I've gotten into the habit of using SCA drive cages and keeping the LVD
cable lengths to a minimum (just between the cage and the controller).
A
OK, I realized that I did not give the full details of the kernel I was
running. I was running 2.2.14 + raid-patch. I got the crashes to stop
when I went back to the 2.2.14smp that came with RedHat 6.2.
I also backed all that data that was on the raid array and stopped the
array deleted the /dev
I hope that this is not my second post to this list, if so I apologize!
(I went and looked at the archive of this list at
http://linuxwww.db.erau.edu/mail_archives/
and it only went through Jan 2000, so not only do I not know if
my posting got in, I cannot check to see what answers may have
been
Hi,
> Hardware setup: RH Linux 6.1/2.2.14/raid-2.2.14-B1 on dual PIII motherboards
> (ASUS P2B-DS) and U2W SCSI IBM disks, 512+ MB RAM.
Running on the same config (redhat6.1/2.2.14/raid-2.2.14-B1 on PIII/ Asus P3BF
2940U2W/IBM 18Go) we have some instability with (servers is not up and we have
t
You'll need to patch you kernel with the patches from
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/, probably. I don't think RAID 0.90 has been
integrated into 2.2.15pre
Greg
> -Original Message-
> From: root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 3:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECT
Hello
I did remove sdq1 from my 6-device autodetecting kernel 2.2.11-raid5-set.
Now there's no way,
to bring it back. 'No spare-disk' it says. What do I need to do?
I tried to rearange the sequenze in /etc/raidtab (device 0 to the bottom)
I added a spare-disk in raidtab.
Please see the boot-mess
Hi All!
Lately, we have been experiencing some serious problems with our Linux servers
using RAID0 on Adaptec 2940U2W. The machines, which are under quite some load,
suddenly dies and must be cold-restarted. When they get back online again,
there's is no sign of anything going awry in any logf
I just found the new patches at people.redhat.com/~mingo and everything
is okay now. Maybe somebody should post this stuff on kernel.org and its
mirrors.
Clay
At 21:10 17.04.00, you wrote:
>Assmuming /dev/hda7 contains the needed data and
>/dev/hdc8 is 2nd partition. We want to make a raid1
>device /dev/md0 on top of /dev/hda8 and /dev/hdc8.
If this is true:
none of the partitions to use as part of the raid array contain data;
create raid device
I am trying to make a software raid5, and it seems no matter what I do
mkraid aborts.
My mkraid output looks like this:
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
disk 0: /dev/hde2, 5269320kB, raid superblock at 5269248kB
disk 1: /dev/hdf2, 5269320kB, raid superblock at 5269248kB
disk 2:
30 matches
Mail list logo
