I am not familiar with RedHat's distribution but have been running
Linux with RAID for nearly 2 years. RAID 5 & 1 from my personal
experience are _very_ stable and function well. I have 5 systems
running 24x7 fully-raided with well over 200GB of data per system.
I would easily put Linux in the
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 03:26:22AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 08:18:23PM -0600, Stephen Costaras wrote:
> > I'm in the process of re-building a system that died and was wondering if
> > there was a raid0145 patch for the 2.2.2 kernel floating
I'm in the process of re-building a system that died and was wondering if
there was a raid0145 patch for the 2.2.2 kernel floating around. If someone
could point me to a url or something I'd appreciate it.
Steve
--
"There are two types of light, the glow that illuminates, and the glare
that
I could offer some small help with RAID 5 documentation/setups
I've got two small arrays that i've been running here for some
time (34GB & 51GB). Under linux 2.0.36/2.2.0..
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Chris Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROT
I tried patching the 2.2.1 kernel w/ the latest patch on ftp.us.kernel.org
(19990128-2.2.0). Everything worked ok except for the patch against:
mm/mmap.c
Seems that this patch is trying to do the following:
***
*** 556,562
unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
unsi
I believe that it's a hard-limit due to the 8bit nature of the scsi drivers.
You can have up to 16 devices and 16 partitions for each device. Since you
have only 256 max possibilities you are limited. (16*16=256).
Now, I remember that I saw a patch a while ago that cut down the number of
partit
I'm currently using kernel v2.2.0 & raid0145-19990128-2.2.0 patch
and am still getting these. Is there a newer driver?
Steve
-Original Message-
From: MOLNAR Ingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephen Costaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL
Now that I'm back on the list I wanted to bring this up. For
the past while running linux 2.2.0pre6, & 2.2.0 release I've
seen the following on one of my volumes:
Jan 21 19:49:09 news kernel: raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[6], sector 2643680
exists
Jan 21 19:49:10 news kernel: raid5: bh c2
I've noticed that I don't seem to be getting any new posts from
this list in the past several weeks. Was wondering if it's just
been unearthly quiet or if something might be going on with the
RBL (Real-time Blackhole List) w/ sendmail and this mail-list.
If it's the first I have a question conc
I have several hardware raid systems on site (EMC, HDS, et al).
and they usually have a tool or program that will force a integrity
check of the raid array (ie, go through the entire array to make sure
that the data and the data's checksum are in sync).
This is not something that is fast, but it
Since 2.0.36 has been out now for a couple weeks I was wondering if
there is a raidtools patch against it, or is it safe to use the
2.0.35 patch against it?
Steve
I was wondering if anyone knows what kind of an affect the stride option
under ext2fs has for RAID 5 performance?
I believe I understand the formula (RAID chunksize / ext2fs blocksize)=
stride value
(first I should ask if the above is correct).
Second, on a real heavy random seek (i/o) system d
nother configuration issue here that is slowing down my system. Anyone
else getting >150K/sec w/ bonnie for RAID 5?
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Kim-Ee Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephen Costaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephen Costaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Improving RAID5 performance (what disks/configuration?)
>For
bandwidth) issue.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Dan Bethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephen Costaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Improving RAID5 performance (what disks/configura
Seeing as we're all using RAID here, someone might know how to eek
better performance out of a I/O subsystem.
I'm using a Dual PPro system (Tyan S1668) with 3 Mylex KT-958
controllers. Each controller has 3 Seagate Barracuda ST15150W
drives (fast/wide, approx. 5MB/sec internal transfer bandwidth
day I get this strange
message written to my console:
raid5: bug: stripe->bh_new[4], sector 1773744 exists
raid5: bh 05bb6798, bh_new 03b54b98
The array is still running and I don't perceive any problems
with the server. But what does the message mean? Is it a problem
I should be concern
I'm just starting to play with the idea to put my entire root
file system under RAID5. Now I know that the docs are way out
of date for this (having played with RAID5 for several data arrays).
Does anyone have any current pointers for information on doing this?
I'm looking for something real sim
work when everything is configured correctly.
Sorry for putting everyone through my stupid mistake.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: MOLNAR Ingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephen Costaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: mkraid --fo
I just managed to install raidtools v0.90 & the raid0145 1005-C patch
for 2.0.35 without any problems. Now I'm trying to re-create an array
(raid 5) as I aquired more disks.
I do a raidstop /dev/md0 - no problem
I change the /etc/raidtab to list all the disks - no problem.
Now I do a mkraid --
OTECTED]>
To: Stephen Costaras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, October 25, 1998 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Can't rebuild RAID5?
>
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Stephen Costaras wrote:
>
>> I have a RAID5 array comprised of 8 scsi di
I have a RAID5 array comprised of 8 scsi disks (/dev/sd[b-i]1)
with /dev/sdb1 being the first disk of the array. I'm using
raidtools-0.51 under kernel 2.0.35.
The first disk /dev/sdb1 failed. the raid continues as normal
like it should. Now when I try to replace the disk with another
fresh 4g
RAID of any level is NOT to be considered a 'backup' method.
There are no assurances built into raid for data reliability.
(ie. A program which writes corrupted data, a user who types
an rm -rf command in a wrong directory), et al. RAID only
protects you against a disk failure. Nothing more.
T
23 matches
Mail list logo
