On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> Indeed, initrd is the way I would like to go, but it probably needs to
> be made or simple/turn-key first.
initrd is much more capable than the kernel's command line. The kernel
command line is limited to 80 characters - which is awfully few. We do
_NOT_
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> One way is by setting the partition type of the relevant partitions.
> This is nice and easy, but requires you to use MSDOS style partition
> tables (which only 99.4% of Linux users do:-), and works fine for
> RAID0 or 1 or 5 or Linear.
no, (and i told y
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
> A kernel patched this way doesn't build with Debian's kernel package.
> Complains "The version number 2.2.16-RAID is not all lowercase. Stop."
>
> Could this be changed to 2.2.16-raid for future versions or should I
> better get in touch with kernel-pack
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 yo
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
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 t
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
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
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 2.4.0-
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> - md2 checks b_rdev to see which device was in error. It gets confused
> because sda12 is not part of md2.
>
> The fix probably involves making sure that b_dev really does refer to
> md0 (a quick look at the code suggests it actually refers to md2!) an
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> I'm confused. I thought I WAS boot-time autostarting. RedHat's
> definitely autodetecting and starting the array very early in the boot
> process, but I'm clearly not entirely properly setup here because my
> partition types are not 0xfd, which see
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> So no problem, I have 3 of the four left, right? The array was marked [_UUU]
> just before I power cycled (the disk was crashing) and since it had been
> marked faulty, I was able to raidhotremove the underlined one.
>
> But now, it won't boot in
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >- renaming ->make_request_fn() to ->logical_volume_fn is both misleading
> > and unnecessery.
>
> Note that with my proposal it was make_request_fn to be misleading because
> all the code run within the callback had anything to do with the
> make
Heinz, Andrea, Linus,
various ideas/patches regarding block device stacking support were
floating around in the last couple of days, here is a patch against
vanilla 2.3.47 that solves both RAID's and LVM's needs sufficiently:
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.3.47-B6
(al
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, James Manning wrote:
> [ Wednesday, February 9, 2000 ] Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > the newest RAID code is being merged into 2.3.43 right now.
>
> (Hopefully) quick question. Will KNI work?
i'll make sure it works (it certainly didnt in the past) - xor.c
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Panetta wrote:
> I am looking for an updated raid driver for kernel 2.3.42+ Does such a
> beast exist? I looked on Ingo's site and only found a patch for
> kernel 2.3.40. This patch did not patch cleanly at all.
the newest RAID code is being merged into 2.3.43 right n
here is the first alpha version of the '2.4 RAID merge' patch against
pre4-2.3.40:
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/ibc-ext2-raid-2.3.40-N1
which implements three more or less independent (but related) features:
- Integrated Buffer-Cache
- improved new-style RAID merged in
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Thomas Gebhardt wrote:
> just looked for the raid for 2.2.13 or 2.2.14 in the kernel archive.
> The last patches that I have found are for 2.2.11 and at least one
> hunk cannot be applied to the newer kernel sources without making
> the hands dirty. Can I get the patches for
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Gadi Oxman wrote:
> As far as I know, we took care not to poke into the buffer cache to
> find clean buffers -- in raid5.c, the only code which does a find_buffer()
> is:
yep, this is still the case. (Sorry Stephen, my bad.) We will have these
problems once we try to elimin
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > this should be fixed in:
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/raid-2.2.14-B1
> >
> > let me know if you still have any problem. The problem outlined by
> > Andrea's patch (which reverses a patch of mine) is solved as well.
>
> O.K. I'm a
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to build a raid0 array with 2 500 MB SCSI disks, using 2.3.36.
2.3.36 is broken wrt. RAID0 (even old RAID0 is broken). The new 2.3 RAID
patch i'm working on for 2.3.36 still has some instabilities in RAID1, but
RAID0 is rock solid. Will
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Robert Dahlem wrote:
> I just wanted to warn everybody not to use raid0145-19990824-2.2.11
> together with kernel 2.2.14: at least in my configuration (two IDE
> drives with RAID-1, root on /dev/mdx) the kernel panics with "B_FREE
> inserted into queues" at boot time.
this s
chunksize does have an important meaning in the linear case: it's
'rounding'. We cannot change this unilaterally (it breaks backwards
compatibility), and it does make sense i believe. [certain disks serve
requests faster which have proper alignment and size. I do not think we
should assume that a
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> I created 2 Raid 5s with 6 Disks each. I created them one after another
> alwas disconnecting the other disks - Both raid 5s were created as
> /dev/md1 - Afterwards i duplicated the md1 entry and created an md2
> attaching all 12 Disks.
>
> On sta
i suspect this is what happened:
md: md0, array needs 12 disks, has 7, aborting.
raid0: disks are not ordered, aborting!
raidstart was still using the old raidtab to start up the array. It has
found an old array's superblock and tried to start it up. Some disks were
not available so the raid0
does it work if you mark all partitions as autostart? raidstart cannot
find all partitions in the system (obviously) and so weird things might
happen if the SCSI chain is shuffled around without raidtab being updated.
-- mingo
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Until now I w
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One more pre15 test:
> 2.2.13pre15 with Unified IDE 2.2.13pre14-19991003 (two rejects in ide.c, one ok, one
>probably harmless):
> (5) dual P3 machine: NULL deref after 6 hours (i.e. this pre15 kernel survived
>longest)
is it correct that this fai
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> > Creating raid partitions is not available if you are using the text mode
> > installer.
>
> You're kidding, aren't you? Seems like RedHat is really trying to go the SuSE
> way and become Windows...
well, the installer is GPL, so you are certainly we
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Tom Livingston wrote:
> * Changed parser.c to assume a chunk-size of 4k for a raid0 array that
> otherwise has no chunk-size... as the documentation suggests to folks that
> no chunk-size param is needed for raid0... and since you can change raid0
> chunk-size after the raid
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Daniel Bidwell wrote:
> > who has had success on hotswapping scsi devices in raid configuration?
> > on which controllers and kernel versions?
> >
> I am usinge a Compaq 2500 with 5 18GB disks, on Debian 2.1, Kernel
> 2.2.12 (with raid patches). We pulled a hotswap disk ou
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
> Since the previous sysctl code had been ripped out, this was pretty
James, are you patching against the latest RAID source? 2.3.18 has a
painfully outdated RAID driver. (i'm working on porting the newest stuff
to 2.3 right now)
> simple, just pulling
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, David A. Cooley wrote:
> Running Kernel 2.2.11 with the raid patch and all is well...
> I'm wanting to upgrade to the 2.2.12 kernel just because it's newer...
> The 2.2.11 raid patch had some problems on the 2.2.12 source. Is there any
> benefit of the 2.2.12 kernel over t
On 31 Aug 1999, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
> Now, I just changed to have the 4 disks on the QLOGIC 1080 (U2/LVD),
> then 4 (2 each for each aic7xxx)
>
> ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block-
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, D. Lance Robinson wrote:
> #define MD_SB_DESCRIPTOR_WORDS 32
> #define MD_SB_DISKS 20
> #define MD_SB_DISK_WORDS (MD_SB_DESCRIPTOR_WORDS * MD_SB_DISKS)
oops. I've just re-checked the superblock layout calculations to prove you
wrong, but actually it t
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Lawrence Dickson wrote:
>I guess this has been asked before, but - when will the RAID code get
> past the 12 disk limit? We'd even be willing to use a variant - our
> customer wants 18 disk RAID-5 real bad.
yes, this has been requested before. I'm now mainly working on
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Mike Black wrote:
> I just set up a mirror this weekend on an IDE RAID1 - two 5G disks on the
> same IDE bus (primary and master).
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 0.95 seconds =67.37 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 3.28 seconds = 9.76
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Chris R. Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> Do you need a persistant superblock for raidstart to work on a
> raid-5 array? I recently remade it without one and now raidstart
> doesn't work. I have to do a "mkraid /dev/md0" to get it to start.
> Is there any thing else that c
this release adds some minor fixes and a new (nonintrusive) feature:
raidsetfaulty. With raidsetfaulty an active disk can be marked as faulty
(surprise) and thus removed from the RAID set. This utility is of course
dangerous: no array should stay in a 'faulty' state for a long time, a
disk failur
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Tom Livingston wrote:
> Are there drawbacks to setting your stripe size to be 4k ? The FAQ I
> used when setting up my 10 drive raid5 array suggested 128k as a
> starting point, which is what I used.
the only possible drawback: the disk/controller might not handle properly
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Lance Robinson wrote:
> AFAIK: RAID-5 accesses are always in stripes. All disks are read (or
> written) no matter how small the original read/write request. Whereas,
> RAID0 can read just one disk for smaller requests. RAID5 does a lot more
> work for smaller requests.
thi
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> this release mainly fixes the (nonfatal but annoying) bugs discovered and
+ fixed
> by Richard Bollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Egon Eckert
this release mainly fixes the (nonfatal but annoying) bugs discovered and
by Richard Bollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Egon Eckert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. There were other buglets in the same area which now
hopefully are all fixed. I've tested various disk-failure and hot-add
scenarios, no stuck ino
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Andrew Doane wrote:
> > you can mirror RAID0 arrays no problem.
> I tried to use linear to combine two raid5 partitions. It died instantly
> with "got md request - not good".
yes - you cannot do it the other way around, yet. I'll fix RAID0 and
LINEAR to handle remaps corr
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Christopher A. Gantz wrote:
> Also was wondering what was the status of providing RAID 1 + 0
> functionality in software for Linux.
it works just fine:
[root@moon /root]# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md2
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Schackel, Fa. Integrata, ZRZ DA wrote:
> Thx for all your help. All works fine. I had to rebuild kernel
> and reboot with the new one.
the 'hard limit' for per-array disks is 12. Work is underway to raise this
limit. (the new code boots and works, but some migration issues
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, EMC Computers wrote:
> I would like to give this a try. Does anyone know where I can find the
> failed disk patch?
it's included in the 19990713 release.
-- mingo
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Michael McLagan wrote:
>Basic config: Supermicro P6DGU, dual Pent III 500MHz, 512M RAM, AIC7890
> chipset, dual Seagate 39140W 9.1G Metalist drives. This fails on multiple
> machines of the same config, so it's not a machine specific hardware problem.
>
>Using 2.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Solitude wrote:
> The reason for the question: I want to build a production box with a root
> raid level 1. I have this kinda sorta working on a test box right now.
> I have not patched the kernel at all. I compiled it myself to support
> initrd, but otherwise it is a s
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The HOWTO states that swapping on RAID is unsafe, and that is probably
> unjustified with the latest RAID patches.
yes swapping is safe. It's _slightly_ justified with RAID1 to be fair -
but i've tried it myself and was unable to reproduce anything
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, jiang wrote:
> I 'd like to know how the queueing commands are organized in a RAID
> system where multi-host and multi-LUN are simultanously supported. Are
> all the queuing commands are threaded or only threaded on a LUN basis?
> Thanks
I'm not sure i understand your ques
i have released Linux-RAID 1999.07.13, you can find the patches
raid0145-19990713-2.0.37.gz, raid0145-19990713-2.2.10.gz and
raidtools-19990713-0.90.tar.gz in the usual alpha directory:
http://www..kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha
[mirrors should have synced up by the time you re
> > #if 0
> > if ((blocksize/1024)*j/((jiffies-starttime)/HZ + 1) + 1
> > > sysctl_speed_limit) {
> > current->priority = 0;
^^
this is the real bug, it should be:
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Robert McPeak wrote:
> Here are the relevant messages from dmesg:
> hdd1's event counter: 000c
> hdb1's event counter: 000c
> request_module[md-personality-2]: Root fs not mounted
> do_md_run() returned -22
hm, this is the problem, it tries to load the RAID persona
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Francesco Potorti` wrote:
> I see that automatic reconstruction and all the other goodies are
> missing from the 2.2 kernels. Will they be included in a later version?
possibly yes. There has been a great deal of cleanup done in the latest
version to make the impact on th
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Robert (Drew) Norman wrote:
> I can not get raidtools-0.90 to work. I have attempted everything I know
> to do. I have used the raidtools-0.50 before with no problems. I am
> running the following:
have you patched the 2.2.8 kernel with the latest RAID driver patch? You
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Charles Barrasso wrote:
> I recently upgraded one of my computers to RedHat 6.0 (which includes raid
> .90). Before the upgrade I had 2 4.1GB SCSI Hdd's combined into a linear RAID
> array (created with raidtools-0.50beta10-2) .. after the upgrade I went to
> re-instate t
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Giulio Botto wrote:
> > I downloaded the latest version of the raidutils and compiled them but
> > still the same error, is there something else I should have goten?
>
> My guess is the "latest" raidtools are already installed, the problem lies
> with the kernel: they proba
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Tuomo Pyhala wrote:
> I upgraded RH6.0 to one machine having raid0 created with some old
> version of mdtools. However new code seems to be unable to start it
> complaining about superblock magic. Has the superblock bee nchanged/Added
> in newer versions making them incompat
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Benno Senoner wrote:
> > no need to do this in the kernel (or even in raidtools). I use such
> > scripts to 'mass-create' partitioned disks:
>
> but it's not unsafe to overwrite the partition-table of disks which are
> actually part of a soft-raid array and in use ?
it's
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Benno Senoner wrote:
> I am interested more in the idea of automatically repartition a new blank disk
> while it is hot-added.
no need to do this in the kernel (or even in raidtools). I use such
scripts to 'mass-create' partitioned disks:
[root@moon root]# cat dobigsd
if
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Steve Costaras wrote:
> I'm playing this weekend with v2.2.6 & the new patches on a spare server
> trying to get boot-raid working or to see how far off it is.
>
> Anyway, I noticed that the current code doesn't seems to allow a 'global
> hot spare' disk for the raid array
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Andy Poling wrote:
> > I agree completely with the first statement. But the second sounds
> > somewhat odd to me. I can hotadd or hotremove a disk on linux with sw RAID
> > and a non-hot swappable capable controller, maybe this is another feature
> > of sw RAID over hw R
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Steve Costaras wrote:
> I have a raid array /dev/md0 on a system here. I am now looking at
> moving some things around and want to rename this to say /dev/md9 or
> whatever. Since this data is mapped (initially) out of the /etc/raidtab
> file and then stored in the raid su
i've just released Linux-RAID 1999.04.21, you can find the patches
raid0145-19990421-2.0.36.gz, raid0145-19990421-2.2.6.gz and
raidtools-19990421-0.90.tar.gz in the usual alpha directory:
http://www..kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha
[mirrors should have synced up by the time you
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Steve Costaras wrote:
> Has anyone created any patches against the new 2.2.6 kernel, the latest
> I've seen is against v2.2.3 which doesn't apply cleanly against the newer
> kernels.
i'll release it Real Soon. (probably this weekend)
> Also, Just a side question, what's th
On 14 Apr 1999, Osma Ahvenlampi wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > it does work for me (i do not actually use it as such, but i've done some
> > stresstesting under heavy load). Let me know if you find any problems.
>
> Hmm? Since when does sw
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi folks,
> we are trying to set up a mirrored (raid-1) system for reliability
> but it is not possible according
> to the latest HOWTO to swap onto a raid volume. Is there any change on
> this?
it does work for me (i do not actually use it as
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Thorsten Schwander wrote:
> System: dual pentium 450, linux 2.2.1 SMP, BusLogic BT-958, two 4.5 GB SCSI
^^^
> disks with root RAID1, raid0145 and raidtools from mid February
> buslogic scsi driver compiled into the ker
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Piete Brooks wrote:
> > The 'old' mdadd+mdrun was always re-creating arrays as well.
>
> So that has to be used ... [ but cannot share a /etc/raidtab :-( ]
no, you should use mkraid at every bootup. You can alias it to raid0start
or whatever ... the old tools _were_ recre
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Martin Bene wrote:
> Yep, it definitely should. Guess I'll write a patch to catch some of the
> possible setup errors (mirror with 1 disk, raid4/5 with two disks (?), any
> others?).
i've fixed the RAID1 problem already in my tree, and RAID4-5 _is_ possible
with 2 disks, it
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Piete Brooks wrote:
> Should raidtools-19990309-0.90 manage a linear device without a SB ?
> [ I can "mkraid" it, but once stopped, it can never be restarted ]
> md8 fails, md7 is fine.
Since it's nonpersistent, it can only be re-created. The 'old' mdadd+mdrun
was always re
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Gianni Mariani wrote:
> I'm interested in developing 2 parity raid. [...]
what exactly do you mean by 2-parity RAID.
parity mirroring is already possible. (use RAID4 with a RAID1 as the
parity disk) The Linux way is a bit more generic, it's not just 2-way
mirroring, it giv
On 12 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> there have been many reports of this. [...]
no. The fix for the buffer cache thing you mean (which caused mke2fs to
fail for very large arrays) is in 2.2.3. The 'aborts mkraid without
telling' thing usually means there is a message in the syslog that mi
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Mike Dickson wrote:
> #start raidtab
> raiddev /dev/mdo
> raid-level 0
> nr-raid-disks 2
> nr-spare-disks 0
>
> device /dev/sdb1
> raid-disk 0
> device /dev/sdc1
> raid-disk 1
something like thi
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Jochen Heuer wrote:
> I'm currently using the md driver that is built into the kernel with
> the standard md-tools. Is it recommended to upgrade to those new
> module+tools if I only use RAID0? If yes, what are the reasons, if not,
> why not :)
not really. It will be some ha
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Hiroki Minematu wrote:
> In DAC960-2.0.0-beta4 patch:
> it insert `#define MAX_SECTORS 254' into
> /usr/src/linux/include/linux/blkdev.h
> and raid0145-19990128-2.0.36 patch:
> it insert `#define MAX_SECTORS 128' into same file.
>
> Possibly, there are some wrong confusio
just to add one more point, i was waiting for 2.2 to stabilize before
moving the RAID driver to 2.2.x. But when patches began floating around
porting the RAID driver to 2.2.x, i rather decided to move the 'official'
patch to 2.2.x too. This resulted in at least two bogus 'RAID-problems' so
far: t
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Luca Berra wrote:
> the latest raid patch raid0145-19990128-2.2.0 is not included in kernel
> 2.2.1 the patch should apply to 2.2.1 with only one reject, which, i
> believe, can be safely ignored.
yep that reject is in mmap.c, which can be ignored. (the RAID patch simply
h
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, David Mansfield wrote:
> Well, I've never gotten a single SCSI error from the controller... not to
> mention that the block being requested is WAY beyond the end of the
> device. If this wasn't a RAID device, this would be one of the 'Attempt
> to access beyond end of devic
79 matches
Mail list logo
