On Thursday June 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Just to set the record straight, no layering of RAID arrays works
> > with the 2.2patch set.
> >
>
> That's interesting since I have several systems with 1 over 0
> including one which is one large partition mirrored as with a pair of
> smaller
> Just to set the record straight, no layering of RAID arrays works
> with the 2.2patch set.
>
That's interesting since I have several systems with 1 over 0
including one which is one large partition mirrored as with a pair of
smaller disks in a 0.
Both of these systems seem to work well with
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 4:29 AM
> To: Corin Hartland-Swann
> Cc: Theo Van Dinter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RAID 1+0
>
> On Thursday June 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
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
Neil,
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thursday June 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So, is 0+1 the only combination currently allowed?
>
> Just to set the record straight, no layering of RAID arrays works with
> the 2.2patch set.
Ohmygod! _Thank_You_ for pointing this out. I remembe
On Thursday June 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Theo,
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > 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
Theo,
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> 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 combinat
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 usually considered
- Original Message -
From: Andy Poling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Corin Hartland-Swann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: RAID 1+0
> On Wed, 31 May 2000, Corin Hartland-Swann wrote:
> > I am trying t
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 Wed, 31 May 2000, Corin Hartland-Swann wrote:
> I am trying to set up RAID1 + RAID0 over four disks. I have
>
> md1 = sda2 sdb2 (RAID 1)
> md2 = sdc2 sdd2 (RAID 1)
> md3 = md1 md2(RAID 0)
>
> I can successfully mkraid these devices, but when I try to mke2fs I get
> the message "Got m
e what is going on? Why does RAID 0+1 work where
RAID 1+0 does not?
I would prefer to use 1+0 since this guards against some (but not all) two
disk failures. As an example, say sda and sdc fail. With 1+0 md1 and md2
will both run in degraded mode, and md3 will still be OK. With 0+1 both
md1 and md2
/dev/sdb6 /dev/sdc6
...
/dev/md4 /dev/sda9 /dev/sdb9 /dev/sdc9
generating Raid 5, all was OK! but I changed my mind, to gain the parity
space ... so I decided to make 3 Raid 1/0 stripes ... changing also
/etc/raidtab accordingly
mkraid -c /etc/raidtab ... makes all well
-> /proc/mds
13 matches
Mail list logo
