James Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Gregory Leblanc]
[root@bod tiobench-0.3.1]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
No size specified, using 200 MB
Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
Try making the size at least double that of ram.
Actually, I do exactly
you can find the latest 2.4 RAID code at:
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.4.0-test1-ac15-B4
this is against the latest Alan Cox kernel (ac15), which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4.0test
which is against the stock
the latest 2.2 (production) RAID code against 2.2.16-final can be found
at:
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0
let me know if you have any problems with it.
Ingo
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
the latest 2.2 (production) RAID code against 2.2.16-final can be found
at:
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0
let me know if you have any problems with it.
Didn't appear to patch cleanly against a clean
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
Didn't appear to patch cleanly against a clean 2.2.16 tree, error
was in md.c and left a rather large .rej file..
ouch, right - i've uploaded a new patch. (this problem was caused by a bug
in creating the patch)
Ingo
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
Didn't appear to patch cleanly against a clean 2.2.16 tree, error
was in md.c and left a rather large .rej file..
ouch, right - i've uploaded a new patch. (this problem was caused by a bug
in
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
ouch, right - i've uploaded a new patch. (this problem was caused by a bug
in creating the patch)
Much nicer, patched cleanly, thanks. Now time to see if it compiles
and works happily. ;)
it should :-) the problem was in creating the
the latest 2.2 (production) RAID code against 2.2.16-final can be found
at:
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0
let me know if you have any problems with it.
What version of raidtools should be used? Is raidtools-0.90-5 sufficient?
Thanks! - mattd
Hi Mingo,
thanks for the patch.
can raidtools-19990824-0.90.tar.gz be used with your patch available on
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0 for new style
RAID on a 2.2.16 kernel instead of the raid0145-19990824-2.2.11 patch.
I noticed the name had an A0 at the end,
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Darren Evans wrote:
can raidtools-19990824-0.90.tar.gz be used with your patch available
on http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0 for new
style RAID on a 2.2.16 kernel instead of the raid0145-19990824-2.2.11
patch.
yep.
I noticed the name had an
Here are some more benchmarks for raid0 with different numbers of
elements, all tests done with tiobench.pl -s=800
Hardware: dual celeron 433, 128MB ram using 2.4.0-test1-ac15+B5 raid
patch, raid drives on two promise udma66 cards (one drive per channel)
Write speed looks decent for 1 and 2
could you send me your /etc/raidtab? I've tested the performance of 4-disk
RAID0 on SCSI, and it scales perfectly here, as far as hdparm -t goes.
(could you also send the 'hdparm -t /dev/md0' results, do you see a
degradation in those numbers as well?)
it could either be some special thing in
did you patch the kernel 2.2.16 with the raid patch?
take a look at the file /proc/mdstat
if that file has the word 'inactive' in it, then you need to patch your
kernel.
look at www.redhat.com/~mingo/
for patches.
allan
Jordan Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a few problems regarding
-Original Message-
From: Jordan Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 12:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RAID0 problems
I have a few problems regarding my software RAID0 solution.
I have two
disks, hdb and hdd, on a raid0 array. Everything was
The subject says it all. Looking at the 2.4 Config.help made it seem like
you didn't need CONFIG_MD_BOOT in addition to CONFIG_AUTODETECT_RAID to
boot from a RAID partition. I'm using 2.2.14 with raid, and before
rebooting to 2.2.16-RAID, I just want to make sure I have my config
options right.
Hi,
I noticed that, after a few crashes, the kernel was
complaining that one of the partitions (sda5) in a 3-
disk RAID 5 set was unavailable. (raidtab fragment
below.)
So I booted with init=/bin/sh (my root password is
hard to type without the local keymap available :)
and did:
# raidhotadd
please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have 2 identical drives with identical partitioning that i am trying to
put into raid arrays (level 1) the partitions are 10, 7, 3, and 40GB.
when i do mkraid, it aborts and says:
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
disk 0: /dev/hde1,
One or the other is needed. I like autodetect myself.
Brian
Ryan Mack wrote:
The subject says it all. Looking at the 2.4 Config.help made it seem like
you didn't need CONFIG_MD_BOOT in addition to CONFIG_AUTODETECT_RAID to
boot from a RAID partition. I'm using 2.2.14 with raid,
I have just come across something a bit disturbing. I copied 200GB
from one machine to another and then ran sum on the copied files.
Some of the had differing checksums (the size was thee same)
The config of two machine are:-
1) kernel-2.2.14
unified ide patch
2.2.14-B1 raid patch
2)
Running kernel 2.2.16-RAID (SMP) with LILO version 21 with attached
raidtab (summary: mirrored /boot, striped /, both split across the same
two drives). When I run lilo and reboot, lilo dies after printing LI To
get my system to boot, I have to boot off of the RedHat CD-ROM (in rescue
mode and
Ingo Molnar wrote:
could you send me your /etc/raidtab? I've tested the performance of 4-disk
RAID0 on SCSI, and it scales perfectly here, as far as hdparm -t goes.
(could you also send the 'hdparm -t /dev/md0' results, do you see a
degradation in those numbers as well?)
it could either
21 matches
Mail list logo
