On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:48:18AM +0530, Abhishek Khaitan wrote:
> Can;t we use bunzip2 instead of playing with tar? And after bunzip2, try tar
> -x kernel-2.2.16.tar ?
The usual suggestion is:
bzip2 -dc | tar -xf -
s/bzip2/gzip/ or s/bzip2/uncompress/ as necessary
--
Randomly Generated Ta
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 03:20:58PM +0300, Dimitrios Stergiou wrote:
> I compiled kernel 2.2.16, included all RAID[0,1,2,3,4] as modules, cretaed
> an initrd image (mkinitrd /boot/initrd-2.2.16-10.img 2.2.16-10) and
> rebooted.
>
> The system, under no circumstances booted. It complained about "md
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 05:24:27PM -0400, Edward Schernau wrote:
> I saw a blurb somewhere about this board offering built in
> RAID 0 and 1, a BIOS thing. Is this just more WinRAID, like
> the Promise Fasttrak?
I have a KA7-100 and there is nothing RAID-related in the BIOS.
--
Randomly Genera
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 09:40:51AM +0200, Chencho wrote:
> How can I add a disk to a raid 5.I have created a raid 5,
> but I dont know how add a new disk.
Assuming you mean "add a new disk to expand the size of the array",
at the moment:
1) backup the data
2) remove and re-cre
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:51:43AM -0400, Mike Black wrote:
> I've been running 2.2.16 with the 2.2.15-A0 patch for about 18 hours now on
> two boxes (one RAID1, one large RAID5).
> It's working fine (the md.c rejects don't matter -- that was for old version
> of md.c).
Well, I tried the "2.2.15,
I'm about to install the 2.2.16 kernel to fix the capabilities bug, and found
that the 2.2.15-A0 raid patch fails in 2 places:
patching file `include/linux/sysctl.h'
Hunk #1 FAILED at 429.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to include/linux/sysctl.h.rej
patching file `drivers/block/md.c'
Hu
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:23:21AM +0100, Corin Hartland-Swann wrote:
> So, is 0+1 the only combination currently allowed?
To my knowledge, yes.
> Is anybody else interested in seeing 1+0, 5+0, etc?
Personally, I would say that if you're going to go for 5+0 or 5+1, you should
really get HW RAID
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 10:17:16AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> NxP: 1/(PN-1) vs N/(PN-1)
Just to correct myself -- this equation actually doesn't work after thinking
about it. It works for P=2, but after that, the whole game changes...
Regardless, striped mirrors is
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:10:30AM -0400, Andy Poling wrote:
> That's the error you will get any time that you try to layer raid levels
> that md does not support layering. It's a safety belt mechanism of sorts.
Arguably, any combination should be allowed, but 0+1 and 1+0 at minimum.
> Either w
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 05:58:19PM +0200, Andreas Martmann wrote:
> Here is my problem: I have destroyed my Bootblock. Now I can´t access
> the root-Partition in order to make a new one. The only thing that I can
> reach is the kernel i had put in the ext2-Partition.
If you can get the kernel, y
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 10:24:20PM +0200, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
> Resync shouldn't change what is read from the array, as it only rebuilds the
> parity -- the redunant information -- and doesn't affect the ``real'' data.
It depends on which RAID level and which disk fail. In this case (RAID5),
On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 12:06:47PM -0700, Erich wrote:
> I looked through the documentation, and I can't find any good
> information about what the chunk size should be in a mirrored
> configruation. I'm using three disks in a Level 1 configuration. The
well, from the man page:
chunk-si
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:28:04PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I think it means you tried to run fsck across an area being resynced.
>
> Is this bad? Should the init scirpts be modified to somehow avoid this?
If doing this is causing problems, there's a bug in the RAID code. At the
file
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 10:28:47PM +0100, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> I've found some cash, and want to add a spare disk to our raid5 array for
> added redundancy.
>
> Can this be done? It is a matter of
>
> 1. raidstop
> 2. add spare to raidtab
> 3. raidhotadd spare
To add a s
On my home machine today, I decided to change how the filesystems are listed
in /etc/fstab from the standard /dev/name to FS labels:
LABEL=ROOT / ext2defaults1 1
LABEL=USR /usrext2defaults1 2
I did this
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 02:56:57PM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> un-planned need to restore an entire system from tape. Usually the restores
> that I do are because Joe User deleted his all important spreadsheet, and
> NEEDS to have it back. I definately agree that RAID shouldn't (and can't)
>
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:42:01AM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> Mostly because it's (pardon my French) a bitch to recover from. RAID5 and
???
> (although still not as easy as a plain mirror), while a stripe of two
> mirrors (RAID01) is a real pain to recover from. Mostly this applies to
??
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:27:59AM +, Glenn Hudson wrote:
> The installation of Red Hat Linux's root partition onto a RAID device is
> not supported.
>
> Do you know what problems having the root partition on RAID will cause?
There are no problems, but the Redhat installer doesn't handle it
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:21:45PM -0600, Bill Carlson wrote:
> 1+5 would still fail on 2 drives if those 2 drives where both from the
> same RAID 1 set. The wasted space becomes more than N/2, but it might
> worth it for the HA aspect. RAID 6 looks cleaner, but that would require
> someone to wr
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:36:52AM -0600, Bill Carlson wrote:
> I've been thinking about this for a different project, how bad would it be
> to setup RAID 5 to allow for 2 (or more) failures in an array? Or is this
> handled under a different class of RAID (ignoring things like RAID 5 over
> mirro
Since this thread has popped up again, here's the URL I was referring to in
my previous email:
http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
You can resize RAID0 arrays, but so far not RAID5 arrays. 8(
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
It's the Magic that counts.
-- Larry
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 03:49:17PM -0500, David Holl wrote:
> I would 'hope' it would work. (under the assumption that raid is only
> concerned with portraying a block device without concern for what is
> stored on that block device) Of course, that's just a 'hope'. :)
Unfortunately, with the
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:47:08PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > I'm a bit cautious here as I've had a bad experience when experimenting
> > with disk changing and ended up with a corrupted array.
Is it just me, or should the RAID superblock include information to make disk
ordering unimportant?
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:36:40AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> while true
> do
> sleep 3
> if [ -n "`cat $RAID_STAT | perl -ne 'if (/(.*\[U*[^\]\[U]+U*\])$/) { print
>\"Failure! $1\n\"; }'`" ]
> then
> cat $RAID_STAT | mail -s " Raid Failure Warning " $ADMIN_EMAIL
>
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 11:26:20AM -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> True, but even with the nifty patches that RedHat has supplied, you can only
> boot from RAID 1. I was thinking you could grab two cards like this, and
> create RAID-0 arrays on both, and then mirror those using Linux software
> R
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 10:40:46AM -0500, Sean Millichamp wrote:
> the RAID. I could do it, but it would be a big pain in the butt and it
> seems that for RAID-1 it should be possible without formatting my original
> drive.
>
> I looked for mention of a setup like this in the howto but didn't se
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 04:02:25PM +0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now how will i mirror the two so that my data dont get loss. i have downloaded
> the raidtools-0.90rpm. As i read the raid documentation i found that you have to
> mark the parttion to fd but to my surprise my fdisk shows that th
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:26:53PM -0500, Jeff Howard wrote:
> 2. When I shutdown, connect the second disk back and start up again,
> the second disk doesn't seem to re-sync. I get a message that the first
> disk is running in degraded mode because there's no spare disk to
> reconstruct the array
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 02:52:31PM -0800, Michael wrote:
> Is there a way to tune this?? so that it has more cpu time available
> -- or whatever it needs??
> what is the purpose of and how do you use
>
> /proc/sys/dev/md/speed-limit
If I remember correctly (it's been a while), the number runs f
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 02:26:31AM -0500, James Manning wrote:
> with a simple cp. I'd probably not bother with sep. ones for each array
> simply b/c the "cp /proc/.../raidtab /etc/raidtab" option would go away,
> although if you want to do both that'd certainly be helpful.
Well, you could alway
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Innovation Strategies wrote:
IS> How can I reconstruct my RAID1?
If you're using the new RAID code (which you should be), you should be
able to just "raidhotadd /dev/hda5". It will add back into the array and
auto-reconstruct.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"The only way y
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Hunter Matthews wrote:
HM> Basically, nobody is going to use a true logging filesystem these days -
HM> the databases themselves do rollback. The other advantage to logging is
HM> the part that is also a part of journaling, and journaling is thus more
HM> general purpose.
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Craig Mckenna wrote:
CM> a mirror. The problem we have is that whenever the server is restarted. The
CM> Mirror comes up and the only data present is
CM> the original contents of the drive, no changes to files or directories on
CM> the Mirror are stored.
The first thing that
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Markus Schulte wrote:
MS> is there a way to hatadd a spare to a running raid5?
After you get the box to recognize the disk, I'm fairly certain you just
do a raidhotadd. It'll auto-add as a spare.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"These periods are always 15 minutes shorter t
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Dirk Lutzebaeck wrote:
DL> "/boot=/dev/md?" line which was suggested in an earlier thread? I
DL> don't see how this works. Going back to Dirk Lutzebaeck's problem
DL> with this, he used "boot=/dev/md0". /dev/md0 is a mirror of
DL> /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1. Why then does lilo t
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Bruno Prior wrote:
BP> (a) Getting the latest patched lilo from RedHat or applying the lilo.raid1 patch
BP> and rebuilding it yourself (if /dev/md0 is RAID-1)
BP> (b) Providing lilo with the geometry of one of the devices in the array (again
BP> if /dev/md0 is RAID-1)
BP> (c)
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Aaron Hatfield wrote:
AH> UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY: RUN ; fsck MANUALLY
AH> /dev/md0: The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 1542208 blocks
AH> The physical size of the device is 1542144 blocks
AH> Either the superblocks or the partition table is likely to be co
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Thomas Davis wrote:
TD> I don't know of any Unix FS with dynamic inode allocation.. Is there
TD> one?
fyi: I know WAFL (NetApp) can do it, but it's not a UNIX fs...
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
If it wasn't for Plumbers, you'd have no place to go !
I currently have a server which I'm planning to setup using RAID -- not a
big deal.
The only thing I haven't quite figured out yet is how I will upgrade the
OS once the root fs is on a RAID array ... I'm currently using RH 6.0,
and am planning to either have a /boot RAID-1 setup w/ the rest of t
| good. I suppose that 1% is due to the filesystem data getting corrupted
| due to the double-disk failure.
just an idea for you guys if you're daring and have the right parts:
a few months ago, I had a double-disk failure on a RAID4 array (happened on power-up).
we ended up taking one of the f
| I think you meant 'if you're NOT really concerned about performance.'
| The benchmarks I've seen for array controllers come nowhere near the
| performance of a software-based array on a simple SMP server. For one
| thing, the processor on, say, a DPT or ICP RAID controller is nowhere
| near as
|Has anyone tried this yet? Will things like fsck still work on a
|filesystem this large?
sure, but it'll take a REALLY long time. I believe that reiserfs is out
now, you may want to look into that. (it's journalled as I remember,
so fscks (unless forced) aren't necessary.) optionally, ext3 o
I've recently been able to procure a hw raid enclosure for a news server, and
wanted to move the current spool (located on a sw raid5 array) to the new
array. Seeing the horrid performance of copying between the two (~1Gb every
30 minutes), I thought it was due to the 'cp -a' I was using to co
| I would be quite interested to have some answers about this matter too.
| (I am interested on RAID-1 too).
if you want to do a form of hardware raid, you might also be interested in a
RAID enclosure instead of a RAID controller. I've been using some from a
company called Zzyzx (http://www.zz
| I just wrote the enclosed.
| open(IN,") {
| if ( $_ =~ /\s+active\s+/ ) {
| $_ =~ /\[(\d+)\/(\d+)\]/;
| $count = $1;
| $active = $2;
| if ( "$active" ne "$count" ) {
| @F = split(/\s+/);
| print "Warning: /dev/$F[0] has a dead partition!\n";
| print "$_";
|
Just curious--
has anyone written a generic "monitor" script that checks the status of the
RAID arrays currently in use? something that might mail if there's an error?
I started working on one, but don't want to reinvent the wheel.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
If it's useless, it will have
| but do you think that there is a possibility that the disk gets corrupted at a
| point which,
| LILO begins loading itself (prior kernel loading) and then stops due to disk I/O
| error ?
usually the whole disk will just fail first.
how about a compromise here: do the LILO thing (since it's no
| Hmm. I use SCSI on high-performance systems, but if IDE is so bad, why
| does NASA use IDE? ;)
as far as I know, beowulf tends to use the network more than the disk, so it
isn't necessary to have an extremely fast disk subsystem. RAM, CPU, and
network speeds are much more important.
--
R
|raid0 configuration currently. I would like to do away with this
|configuration, and setup a linux software raid. I would prefer to use a
ok
|stable 2.0.X kernel but will use a 2.1.x kernel if neccessary. I am
shouldn't be a problem unless you need some of the 2.1.x (or now 2.2.0preX)
features
| I've created the appropriate partitions, set the partition ID to fd, and
| created the appropriate /etc/raidtab file. Running:
| invalid chunk size (0Kb)
what does this "appropriate" raidtab file look like?
you should have a line like this in it:
chunk-size 256
--
Randomly Ge
| I am running RedHat version 5.1 (kernel 2.0.35)
| and have pulled down the patch file
| raid145-0.36.3-2.0.30.gz
make sure you have the 'kernel-source' RPM installed (or just go grab the
source from ftp.kernel.org or a mirror). if you grab the source, untar it in
a directory (this is typical
I reported this last week, but thought I'd send in an update. I've been
running a RAID 5 array w/ kernel 2.1.125 & raid 19981005. When I upgraded to
19981105, autostart stopped working. It has continued to not work w/ versions
19981106 and 1108.
To fix some fs corruption that occured last w
Just curious,
There was a large rejection when applying raid0145-19981005 to the 2.1.125
kernel source (problems with drivers/block/md.c). Is there a new version
being released to cleanly apply to 2.1.125, or can I just copy over the
patched 2.1.124 md.c and go from there? The only differenc
53 matches
Mail list logo
