Re: Re: RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-23 Thread Mike Black
23,x203 http://www.csi.cc Computer Science Innovations http://www.csi.cc/~mike My home page FAX 407-676-2355 - Original Message - From: Chris R. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mike Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 12:02 PM Subjec

Re: RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-21 Thread Piete Brooks
> Forgive my novice question, but is this implying that with a SCSI > arrangement, failure of one drive will not lock/affect the SCSI bus? Failure of a **DRIVE** should not effect the SCSI bus at all. Failure of the *controller* (real failures are very rare, normally it is power loss) can cause

Re: RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-21 Thread Mike Frisch
Carlos Carvalho wrote: > It's been said that with IDE, if the master drive fails the slave one > is also unavailable, which means that you lose TWO drives (I haven't Forgive my novice question, but is this implying that with a SCSI arrangement, failure of one drive will not lock/affect the SCSI b

Re: RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-20 Thread Chance Reschke
[...] > We will infact put each IDE drive on its own channel, but our testing > reveals that RAID5 doesn't know when to stop (or maybe how to > stop gracefully) If two drives go out I would hope that the array > just stop, not corrupt the data, or continue operating. > > This same secene

Re: RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-19 Thread Carlos Carvalho
Chris R. Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 17 May 1999 21:08: >We've experienced a few odd anomalies during testing our IDE RAID-5 >array ( 6 x 16gb =80g). > >We started with a good running array and did an e2fsck to ensure its >integrity... > >We simulated a drive failure by disconnecti

Re: RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-18 Thread Piete Brooks
> We've experienced a few odd anomalies during testing our IDE RAID-5 > array ( 6 x 16gb =80g). raidtools 0.90 with raid0145 patches ? > We simulated a drive failure by disconnecting a drive's power, and if > the IDE channel contained a second drive in the RAID5 array, the array > was permanen

RAID-5 Recovery testing

1999-05-18 Thread Chris R. Brown
We've experienced a few odd anomalies during testing our IDE RAID-5 array ( 6 x 16gb =80g). We started with a good running array and did an e2fsck to ensure its integrity... We simulated a drive failure by disconnecting a drive's power, and if the IDE channel contained a second drive in the RA

Re: RAID-5 recovery testing

1999-05-16 Thread Piete Brooks
> 1.Is the array still useable after it looses a drive? I had certainly gained the impression that that was the purpose. > We've yanked the power out of a running drive two seperate > times, and it has not worked correctly afterwards. Are you sure that the FS was OK before you star

RAID-5 recovery testing

1999-05-16 Thread Chris R. Brown
Hello all, We have implemented a RAID-5 array on one of our systems here, and are doing some testing on it. It's a 6 disk array of 16GB drives all on /dev/md0 with the e2fs made with 'mke2fs -b 4096 -R stride=8 /dev/md0'. 1.Is the array still useable after it looses a drive?