Hi,
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:17:12 +0100, Luca Berra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> do you mean that the problem arises ONLY, when a disk fails and has to
> be reconstructed?
No, it can happen any time the kernel does a resync after an unclean
shutdown.
--Stephen
Hi,
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:11:14 -0500 (EST), Andy Poling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 02:53:22PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>> Sorry, but since then we did find a fault. Raid resync goes through the
>> buffer cache. Swap bypasses the buffer cache. There is no cohe
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 02:53:22PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Sorry, but since then we did find a fault. Raid resync goes through the
> buffer cache. Swap bypasses the buffer cache. There is no coherency
> between the two activities. It is possible for raid1 and raid5
> background resy
On 6 Dec 1999 07:03:18 -0800, Stephen C. Tweedie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sorry, but since then we did find a fault. Raid resync goes through the
>buffer cache. Swap bypasses the buffer cache. There is no coherency
>between the two activities. It is possible for raid1 and raid5
>background
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 02:53:22PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Sorry, but since then we did find a fault. Raid resync goes through the
> buffer cache. Swap bypasses the buffer cache. There is no coherency
> between the two activities. It is possible for raid1 and raid5
> background resy
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 18:04:27 +0100, Martin Bene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> At 11:35 25.11.99 +0100, Thomas Waldmann wrote:
>> What's more interesting for me: how about swap on RAID-5 ?
> Personaly, I've only used raid1, but I can give you a quote from Ingo - and
> he should know:
> At 14:
At 11:35 25.11.99 +0100, Thomas Waldmann wrote:
>What's more interesting for me: how about swap on RAID-5 ?
>
>So what's best and definitely working in that case:
>RAID-1 4x mirror (doesn't look like making much sense)
>RAID-1 two 2x mirrors with same swap priority
>RAID-5 swap space on 4 disks (p
> Swap on raid1 IS possible with version 0.90.
What's more interesting for me: how about swap on RAID-5 ?
I currently run a setup with 4 SCSI HDDs with SW-RAID5 and root-fs on md0.
Each of these HDDs currently has a std swap partition and fstab swap entry
with same priority (so kernel automagic
Thank you Martin. I'm doing this now
Take care.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: David Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Best way to set up swap for hi
At 14:19 23.11.99 -0800, David Cunningham wrote:
>The issue is RAID-1 swap. I'm a little unclear as to which method to use to
>ensure best availability for my server. Currently I have two 10 gig EIDE
>drives with identical partitions set up as follows:
Swap on raid1 IS possible with version 0.
Hmm. Last message might have been a bit confusing. Mainly what I'm looking
for is a suggestion regarding setting up swap for high availability. I'm
guessing that with the native raid 0 support for swap, a single disk failure
will corrupt the swap and potentially bring the system down in a crash
Hi all,
Can I just remind people that the kernel already has built in support for
swap as raid 0. It's been there for a while and doesn't need any patches.
Just set the priority levels for the swap partitions to be the same and
instant raid 0 swapping.
I know the initial Q was in regards to swa
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 06:20:00PM -0500, Luis Costabile wrote:
>
> Just a note, I see you've configured swap as 128Meg, I thought that was
> the maximum but I tried configuring a swap partition of 1 Gig and it looks
> like it took, I don't know for sure. If I cat /proc/meminfo or run free
> or
I have a similar setup to the one you describe, however for the RAID
partitions ID I'm using fd , you set this using fdisk, it's intended for
RAID partitions and the HOWTO suggests using it , in addition to
persistent superblock so the partition gets noticed at boot time.
I haven't had any probl
Hi there,
first of all, I am a raiding newbie as well, so this is not even my two cents.
:-)
David Cunningham wrote:
> Hello all. I found this address in the Raidtools-0.90.2 (Alpha) package.
> I'm not sure if this is a mailing list or not. If so, please copy answers
> to these questions to m
Hello all. I found this address in the Raidtools-0.90.2 (Alpha) package.
I'm not sure if this is a mailing list or not. If so, please copy answers
to these questions to my personal address as I am not yet a member of the
list. Thanks.
The issue is RAID-1 swap. I'm a little unclear as to which
16 matches
Mail list logo
