On Fri, 5 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > > > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
> > >
> > > A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
> >
> >
> > Ehem, a fair bit on a 500Mhz CPU is
> -Original Message-
> From: Andre Hedrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 7:59 PM
> To: Gary E. Miller
> Cc: Linux Kernel; Linux RAID
> Subject: Re: IDE Controllers
>
> What you do not know is that there will be a drive int the futre that
> will have a native SCSI
What you do not know is that there will be a drive int the futre that
will have a native SCSI overlay and front end. This will have a SCB->ATA
converter/emulation. This will require setup and booting as a SCSI
device. FUN, heh??
Andre Hedrick
The Linux ATA/IDE guy
Hi there:
My raid1 is running fine on /dev/hda(boot disk) and
/dev/hdc.
;;Modified /etc/lilo.conf(Add one section for
initrd.raid.img)
Two cmds issued:
mkinitrd /boot/initrd.raid1.img --with raid1
2.2.12-20
lilo -v ;;No warning.
Then, power down, remove /dev/hdc, power up.
/dev/hda is abl
I have RedHat6.1, but raidsetfaulty doesn't seem to
work for me. Am I missing something? My
/sbin/raidsetfaulty is linked to /sbin/raidstart.
/home/mcajalin/ftp_hdc/raid1]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md1 : active raid1 hdc8[1] hda8[0] 513984 blocks [2/2]
[UU
Yo Andre!
I know that, I am using Mingo's RAID-1 patch. Sort of figured that
should be obvious on the linux-raid group...
RGDS
GARY
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> RUDE surprize for you
>
> Hardware RAID 1 under promise is not hardware!
>
> Details.drives and host
RUDE surprize for you
Hardware RAID 1 under promise is not hardware!
Details.drives and host bios rev (promise)?
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> Yo Andre!
>
> 2.2.14 did not work for me. I have a dual PIII with onboard UDMA33
> controller running RAID1. Very sta
Yo Andre!
2.2.14 did not work for me. I have a dual PIII with onboard UDMA33
controller running RAID1. Very stable. When I just moved the
two drives to a Promise Ultra66 the system became very unstable
(uptimes in minutes). YMMV.
RGDS
GARY
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> http://w
"Christopher E. Brown" wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> > >
> > > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
> >
> > A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
>
> Ehem, a fair bit on a 50
http://www.linux-ide.org/
Yes PDC20246/PDC20262 are SMP safe.
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Edward Muller wrote:
> I was wondering which add in PCI IDE controllers are good to use and SMP safe
> with a 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 kernel. I did some looking for Ultra66 controllers and
> the only thing I could find
> > >
> > > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
> >
> > A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
>
>
> Ehem, a fair bit on a 500Mhz CPU is ~ 30%. I have watched a
> *single* UDMA66 drive (with read ahead
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Michael Robinton wrote:
> >
> > Not entirely, there is a fair bit more CPU overhead running an
> > IDE bus than a proper SCSI one.
>
> A "fair" bit on a 500mhz+ processor is really negligible.
Ehem, a fair bit on a 500Mhz CPU is ~ 30%. I have watched a
*single*
Ben Ross wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm using a raid1 setup with the raidtools 0.90 and mingo's raid patch
> against the 2.2.15 kernel.
...
> My concern is if /dev/sdb1 really crashes and I replace it with another
> fresh disk, partition it the same as before, and do a resync, everything
> on /dev/
> From: Gregory Leblanc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> ..., that would suck up a lot more host CPU processing power than
> the 3 SCSI channels that you'd need to get 12 drives and avoid bus
>saturation.
not to mention the obvious bus slot loading problem ;-)
rc
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Robinton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:31 PM
> To: Christopher E. Brown
> Cc: Chris Mauritz; bug1; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: performance limitations of linux raid
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
On 5 May, Edward Muller wrote:
> I was wondering which add in PCI IDE controllers are good to use and SMP safe
> with a 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 kernel. I did some looking for Ultra66 controllers and
> the only thing I could find that was supported was the Ultra66 from
> Promise. Checking on their sit
(I really hate how Outlook makes you answer in FRONT of the message,
what a dumb design...)
Well, without spending the time I should thinking about my answer, I'll say
there are many things which impact performance, most of which we've seen
talked about here:
1 - how fast can you get dat
I was wondering which add in PCI IDE controllers are good to use and SMP safe
with a 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 kernel. I did some looking for Ultra66 controllers and
the only thing I could find that was supported was the Ultra66 from
Promise. Checking on their site, they state the the driver is included wi
Hi All,
I'm using a raid1 setup with the raidtools 0.90 and mingo's raid patch
against the 2.2.15 kernel.
My question is how does the raid driver decide which disk in the mirror to
use as the source for synchronization when mkraid is used?
I tried a few experiments to see how it behaved. The /
20 matches
Mail list logo
