Hi,
We've been using the sw raid 5 support in linux for about 2-3 months now.
We've had good luck with it.
Until this week.
In this one week we've lost two drives on a 3 drive array. Completely
eliminating the array. We have good backups, made everynight, so the data
is safe. The problem is thi
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> I have an odd question. Where I work we will, in the next year, be in a
> position to have to process about a terabyte or more of data. The data is
> probably going to be shipped on tapes to us but then it needs to be read
> from disks and analyzed. The process
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Malcolm Beattie wrote:
> Is the raid1readbalance-2.2.15-B2 patch (when applied against a
> 2.2.16+linux-2.2.16-raid-B2 kernel) rock-solid and production
> quality? Can I trust 750GB of users' email to it? Is it guaranteed
> to behave the same during failure modes that the non
Is the raid1readbalance-2.2.15-B2 patch (when applied against a
2.2.16+linux-2.2.16-raid-B2 kernel) rock-solid and production
quality? Can I trust 750GB of users' email to it? Is it guaranteed
to behave the same during failure modes that the non-patched RAID
code does? Is anyone using it heavily i
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:17:18AM +0200, Martin Bene wrote:
> "dangerous" tools. Bzw, has anyone checked what's different in this tools
> package in comparison to the 19990824 release?
yes it raises the max number of devices per superblock!!!
--
Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Communicatio
Hi Danilo,
> > [root@mrqserv2 linux]# mkraid /dev/md0
> > handling MD device /dev/md0
> > analyzing super-block
> > disk 0: /dev/sdb1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
> > disk 1: /dev/sdc1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
> > disk 2: /dev/sda6, failed
> > mkraid: aborted, see the
