> Hey Seth,
>
> Sorry to hear about your drive failures. To me, this is something that
> most people ignore about RAID5: Lose more than one drive and everything is
> toast. Good reason to have a drive setup as a hot spare, not to mention an
> extra drive laying on the sh
ymore and its been RMA'd the other
> detects and I'm currently mke2fs -c on the drive.
Hey Seth,
Sorry to hear about your drive failures. To me, this is something that
most people ignore about RAID5: Lose more than one drive and everything is
toast. Good reason to have a drive setup as a
> Could this be a powersupply failure?
For example. I've seen 144 V on the motherboard. None of the drives
survived as you can expect. It was after a storm with lightnings :-)
Szilva
--
http://www.wbic.cam.ac.uk/~sj233
Hi,
We've been using the sw raid 5 support in linux for about 2-3 months now.
We've had good luck with it.
Until this week.
In this one week we've lost two drives on a 3 drive array. Completely
eliminating the array. We have good backups, made everynight, so the data
is safe. The problem is thi
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:17:18AM +0200, Martin Bene wrote:
> "dangerous" tools. Bzw, has anyone checked what's different in this tools
> package in comparison to the 19990824 release?
yes it raises the max number of devices per superblock!!!
--
Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Communicatio
Hi Danilo,
> > [root@mrqserv2 linux]# mkraid /dev/md0
> > handling MD device /dev/md0
> > analyzing super-block
> > disk 0: /dev/sdb1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
> > disk 1: /dev/sdc1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
> > disk 2: /dev/sda6, failed
> > mkraid: aborted, see the
hi,
to everybody on the list, thank you again
for your help, it works ! :-))
[mrq1@mrqserv2 mrq1]$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid5]
read_ahead 1024 sectors
md0 : active raid5 sda1[3] sdc1[1] sdb1[0] 8466048 blocks level 5, 32k
chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Hermann 'mrq1' Gausterer wrote:
> but when i do mkraid, i get an error :-(((
>
> [root@mrqserv2 linux]# mkraid /dev/md0
> handling MD device /dev/md0
> analyzing super-block
> disk 0: /dev/sdb1, 4233096kB, raid superblock at 4233024kB
> disk 1: /dev/sdc1, 4233096kB, raid sup
i want to use my 3 4gb uw harddiscs in a raid5 combination
i do the steps discribed in the howto at
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Boot+Root+Raid+LILO-4.html
my /etc/raidtab
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 5
nr-raid-disks 3
chunk-size 32
# Spare
I have a quite large (~490G) raid5 array for slink (originally 2.2.13) and
succeed in to shut down incorretly. There was no any hardware failure, but
ckraid did not fixed the array. Seems stucked about 10-20% completion
(I've tried to run it about 5 times, the completion percentage was
diff
Dear Alvin,
>>>>> OnSun, 16 Jul 2000 22:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED](Alvin Oga) said:
>
>
> hi "raiders"...
>
> i recently changed my raid5 box that was running on debian-2.2
> into a new atx case new linux-
hi "raiders"...
i recently changed my raid5 box that was running on debian-2.2
into a new atx case new linux-2.2.16...etc.e.tc...
-
- its in a 1U raid5 box... worlds first ??
-
seems like mkraid does various different things ???
some mkraid works and othe
Dear Raid users,
I've been using RAID5 system for nearly six months without problem,
but recently the machine halted while the rebooting process (displayed
message attached below). I tried old valid kernels and some succeeded
to boot, but the md device(/dev/md0) was still invisible. Acco
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hallo liebe Linux- und RAID-Freunde,
>
> nach mehrfachem Lesen von man-pages und einigen vergeblichen Versuchen ein
> RAID5 auf der Basis von drei Festplatten aufzubauen, fühle ich mich durch
> Ihren Vermerk ermuntert Sie doch an
I've had this problem. It was due to that disk being damaged. I suggest
you do a scan on that disk with the scsi utility of your controller. If
it reports bad sectors and such, swap the disk, create the linux raid
partition on it and hot swap it in, as described in the HOWTO
--
ai
http://
configuration doesn't work. What do you mean when
> you write "nothing works"?
> Horst Zymelka
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2000 17:53
Hello
Please write in english. And for german docus look at www.linux-docu.de
for closer details.
With greetings
Thomas King
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>
> Hallo liebe Linux- und RAID-Freunde,
>
> nach mehrfachem Lesen von man-pages und einigen vergeblichen Versuchen ein
>
configuration doesn't work. What do you mean when
you write "nothing works"?
Horst Zymelka
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2000 17:53
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: RAID5
Hallo liebe Linux- und RAID-Freunde,
nach mehrfachem Lesen von man-pages und einigen vergeblichen Versuchen ein
RAID5 auf der Basis von drei Festplatten aufzubauen, fühle ich mich durch
Ihren Vermerk ermuntert Sie doch anzusprechen.
Etwas zu meiner Person: Seit mehreren Jahren befasse ich mich
Hi,
As far as I know "raidhotadd" is what you need.
Tamas.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Patrick Scharrenberg wrote:
> Hi..
>
> due to a system crash one partition of the raid array has an invalid event
>counter... so my array runs un degraded mode...
> but how can I integrate it back to the array??
Hi..
due to a system crash one partition of the raid
array has an invalid event counter... so my array runs un degraded mode...
but how can I integrate it back to the array???
Where does raid store the superblockinfo??
I tried to remove the partition with fdisk,
recreatet it, formated it,
hi ya "raiders"
i just upgraded my old sw raid5 on debian-2.2 w/ linux-2.2.10
to linux-2.2.16 w/ the patches from mingo's patch dirs...
works good...nice and clean...no problems...
good work guys
and my (abbreviated) collection of raid stuff...
http://www.linux-consulting.com/
Hi,
> Well, unfortunately we're using IDE drives, each connected to an IDE/SCSI
> adapter, which has an ide interface on one side and a scsi-2 interface on
> the other. As we're on something of a budget, this is what we have to work
> with if we're going for storage volume.
If you use the same t
At 17:25 Uhr -0700 05.07.2000, Ben wrote:
>> So I can't get your point.
>Well, unfortunately we're using IDE drives, each connected to an IDE/SCSI
>adapter
Okay, this wasn't clear. Sorry.
>> Simply test by copying something onto it, sync, work otherwise so the
>> kernel buffers get flushed and
> If you care for reability, you should probably end up in using some sort
> of hardware array instead. For many persons linux raid works reliable and
> very fine. Also does LVD-SCSI in it's U2W incarnation which is also way
> faster than simple FAST-SCSI-WIDE (what in fact is the most you can get
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Ben wrote:
> The drives are all connected on the same SCSI-2 bus (we care about
> quantity and reliability, not speed), which is obviously not a
> performance deamon but should work just fine.
If you care for reability, you should probably end up in using some sort
of hardwar
We just made ourselves a raid5 software raid out of 7 60GB drives, using
the 2.2.11 kernel, appropriate patches, and the raid 0.90 tools. The
drives are all connected on the same SCSI-2 bus (we care about quantity
and reliability, not speed), which is obviously not a performance deamon
but should
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Yes, I know that. Unfortunately, I'm working on an extremely
> insert-heavy application (over 100 million records per day). I would
> really like ReiserFS (due to the large file size as well as for the
> journaling). I don't see how RAID5 ca
nk size, -R stride=, reiserfs,
James> more memory, etc)
OK, I wasn't aware of the chunk size and -R stride= tunings. Where
can I read about these?
I was also under the impression that reiserfs was not working/stable
over software RAID5. Has that changed?
James> Just a thought, although
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I find that my RAID5 array is just too slow for my DB application. I
> have a large number of DB files on this array. I would like to
> convert to RAID0, and I can back up my files, but I was wondering if
> there is a way to convert without reformatting?
N
I find that my RAID5 array is just too slow for my DB application. I
have a large number of DB files on this array. I would like to
convert to RAID0, and I can back up my files, but I was wondering if
there is a way to convert without reformatting?
Dave
Carlos,
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> I've been using raid5 with auto-detection for over a year without
> problems. Everything including the root fs is on raid5, the machine
> boots from floppy.
>
> I now want to rearrange the disks in raid0 arrays, and mak
> -Original Message-
> From: Carlos Carvalho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: autostart with raid5 over raid0?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been using raid5 with auto-detection for over a yea
Hi all,
I've been using raid5 with auto-detection for over a year without
problems. Everything including the root fs is on raid5, the machine
boots from floppy.
I now want to rearrange the disks in raid0 arrays, and make a raid5 of
these. Will auto-detection/autostart work in this cas
Hi,
How to shutdown a computer properly so that the
raid5 will sync properly during shutdown?
Leng Wee
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, D. Lance Robinson wrote:
>Ingo,
>
>I can fairly regularly generate corruption (data or ext2 filesystem) on a busy
>RAID-5 by adding a spare drive to a degraded array and letting it build the
>parity. Could the problem be from the bad (illegal) buffer interactions you
>mention
James Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Gregory Leblanc]
> > > [root@bod tiobench-0.3.1]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
> > > No size specified, using 200 MB
> > > Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
> >
> > Try making t
[Gregory Leblanc]
> Sounds good, James, but Darren said that his machine had 256MB of ram. I
> wouldn't have mentioned it, except that it wasn't using enough, I think.
it tries to stat /proc/kcore currently. no procfs and it'll fail to
get a good number... I've thought about other approaches, t
> -Original Message-
> From: James Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:46 PM
> To: Gregory Leblanc
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: bonnie++ for RAID5 performance statistics
>
>
> [Gregory Leblanc]
> > > [roo
[Gregory Leblanc]
> > [root@bod tiobench-0.3.1]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
> > No size specified, using 200 MB
> > Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
>
> Try making the size at least double that of ram.
Actually, I do exactly that, clam
0.3.1]# ./tiobench.pl --dir /raid5
No size specified, using 200 MB
Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
File Block Num Seq ReadRand Read Seq Write Rand Write
DirSize Size Thr Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:16 AM
> To: Gregory Leblanc
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: bonnie++ for RAID5 performance statistics
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Yeah I know sorry about t
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 3:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: bonnie++ for RAID5 performance statistics
>
> I guess this kind of thing would be great to be detailed in the FAQ.
Di
I guess this kind of thing would be great to be detailed in the FAQ.
Anyone care to swap statistics so I know how valid these are.
This is with an Adaptec AIC-7895 Ultra SCSI host adapter.
Is this good, reasonable or bad timing?
[darren@bod bonnie++-1.00a]$ bonnie++ -d /raid5 -m bod -s 90mb
MB PC100 ECC
Adaptec 39160 Ultra160-Wide SCSI
Adaptec Ultra160 Cabling to 5-bay SCA hot-swap module
4 x Seagate Barracuda 18XL, 18.4 GB, Ultra160-Wide SCSI, Model ST318436LCV
It works really well - RAID0 over all four drives (this was a test, not
production!) gave 95 MB/s read at 45% CPU, and 84 MB/s w
Edward Schernau wrote:
> What kinds of disks are you using? I'm seeing occasional
> corruption on my Seagate 20MB ATA66 barracuda, and have
> not ruled out the possibility of unstable ATA66 mode.
Hi Edward!
I am using these U160-SCSI-disks together with an Adaptec
39160-controller - not IDE:
What kinds of disks are you using? I'm seeing occasional
corruption on my Seagate 20MB ATA66 barracuda, and have
not ruled out the possibility of unstable ATA66 mode.
--
Edward Schernau,mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Architect http://www.schernau.com
RC5-64#: 2432
Hallo!
I have some problems with my RAID5-system. The setup worked fine,
everything is running. But if I copy files to my RAID-drive, the files are
corrupt - that means, if I have copied a zipped file to my disks and want
to unzip it, I get some CRC-errors. I compared the file on the RAID
[Jakob Østergaard]
> > Set up a raidtab entry **WITH GREAT CARE** specifying the minimal set as
> > above, with the oldest partitions `raid-failed'. Now create the device.
> > This will write a new set of consistent PSBs.
>
> Correct.
s/raid-failed/failed-disk/ as per section 6.1
http://www.lin
the HOWTO describes this scenario.
> *** I have never used RAID5 for real.
> *** I have seen this suggestion before, and I agree it is probably the best
> *** you can do !
>
> If you think you have a set of disks which will make up a degraded array,
> then cross your fingers, a
> I had a failure where 2 of the disks out of 4 is marked bad.
< (by superblock update time inconsistency) Do i have chance to recover
> from this ? thanx in advance..
This should be in the FAQ ...
*** I have never used RAID5 for real.
*** I have seen this suggestion before, an
Hello,
I had a failure where 2 of the disks out of 4 is marked bad.
(by superblock update time inconsistency) Do i have chance to recover
from this ? thanx in advance..
Mustafa Bodur
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
She eyes me like a pisces
Hi there:
I installed red-hat6.2 and raidtools are within
it.
I made a raid5:
my /etc/raidtab
raiddev
/dev/md0raid-level
5nr-raid-disks
3nr-spare-disks
0persistent-superblock
1chunk-size
4
parity-algorithm
left
>
Cc: "Pavel Kucera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Help with RAID5 damage please
>
> Hi there,
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> > > May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdh
Hi there,
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> > May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdh2's event counter: 000a
> > May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdg2's event counter: 0008
> > May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hdf2's event counter: 0008
> > May 18 16:38:27 backup kernel: hde2's
n with hdh2 included.
Good luck!
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: "Pavel Kucera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:46 AM
Subject: Help with RAID5 damage please
> Hello,
>
> I have all my backup on server with
Hello,
I have all my backup on server with 8 EIDE disk in RAID5 array. This
server was cold rebooted and now RAID5 has unconsistent superblock. Is
there any posibility to get my data back from RAID ?
Thanks,
Pavel
This is what happens when I try to start raid (raidstart):
May 18 16:38:27
> -Original Message-
> From: octave klaba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:25 AM
> To: Thomas Scholten
> Cc: Linux Raid Mailingliste
> Subject: Re: How to test raid5 performance best ?
>
> > 1. Which tools should i use to test raid-
Hi,
> 1. Which tools should i use to test raid-performace ?
tiotest.
I lost the official url
you can download it from http://ftp.ovh.net/tiotest-0.25.tar.gz
> 2. is it possible to add disks to a raid5 after its been started ?
good question ;)
--
Amicalement,
oCtAvE
Connexion termin
Hello All,
some day ago i joined the Software-Raid-Club :) I'm now running a SCSI-Raid5
with 3 2 GB partitions. I choosed a chunk-size of 32 kb. Referring to the
FAQ i'm told to experiment to get best performance chunk-size, but i
definitly have no good clue how to test performace :-/
Anyone have any idea when a working implementation
of raid 5 will be out for 2.3.x? There's a patch against
2.3.99prex-y at http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/...,
but that doesn't seem to include the raid5.h file,
among other things.
Brian Kress
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Summary: raid5_error needs to handle the first scsi error from a device and
do the necessary action, but silently return on subsequent failures.
- 3 h/w raid0's in a s/w raid5
- initial resync isn't finished (not important)
- scsi error passed up takes out one of the de
Hello
I did remove sdq1 from my 6-device autodetecting kernel 2.2.11-raid5-set.
Now there's no way,
to bring it back. 'No spare-disk' it says. What do I need to do?
I tried to rearange the sequenze in /etc/raidtab (device 0 to the bottom)
I added a spare-disk in raidtab.
Plea
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, "Ingo" == Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo> well, it was boot-time 'very early' autostarting, but not
Ingo> RAID-autostarting in the classic sense.
Understood.
Ingo> I think i'll fix raidstart to simply iterate through all available
Ingo> partitions, until one is star
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> I'm confused. I thought I WAS boot-time autostarting. RedHat's
> definitely autodetecting and starting the array very early in the boot
> process, but I'm clearly not entirely properly setup here because my
> partition types are not 0xfd, which see
bind
bind
running:
now!
hdi1's event counter: 0081
hdg1's event counter: 0081
hdk1's event counter: 0081
md: md1: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstruction
raid5 personality registered
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> So no problem, I have 3 of the four left, right? The array was marked [_UUU]
> just before I power cycled (the disk was crashing) and since it had been
> marked faulty, I was able to raidhotremove the underlined one.
>
> But now, it won't boot in
normal partitions.
I want to get my 4 ~20GB drives into a raid5 setup, with 3 data disks
using 18GB of each, and one parity disk, so i can have about 54GB of
storage
I will use about 2GB from each of the 5 drives for a raid0
And whats left over for the linux system
Is it possible to integrate a
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, "Darren" == Darren Nickerson wrote:
Darren> But now, it won't boot into degraded mode. As I try to boot redhat to
Darren> single user, I am told:
Darren> Starting up RAID devices: /dev/md1: Invalid Argument
Darren> /dev/md1 is not a Raid0 or linear array
D
Folks,
My array decided to show me what was wrong with it (see my posts earlier
today). It was a comprehensive head crash which was slow coming on but which
eventually took the disk totally out of action. The Promise card does not even
see it . . . :-(
So no problem, I have 3 of the four left,
Its a nice complicated case of semaphores in threaded (multi process?) systems ...
... one system needs to be aware that the other system isn't ready yet, without
causing incompatibilities. With RAID, would it be possible for the MD driver to
actually accept the mount request but halt the proces
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, "Gregory" == Gregory Leblanc 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 spar
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Nickerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 2:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Adding a spare-disk to a RAID5 array?
>
> I've found some cash, and want to add a spare disk to our
> raid5
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
>
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
or is it more a matter of
1. raidstop
2. cry
3. mkraid
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think my situation is the same as this "two failed disks" one but I
> haven't been following the thread carefully and I just want to double check.
>
> I have a mirrored RAID-1 setup between 2 disks with no spare disks.
> Inadv
ECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 8:50 AM
> > To: Rainer Mager
> > Cc: Jakob Ostergaard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Raid5 with two failed disks?
> >
> > Whether or not the array is in sync should not make a difference to the
> > boot process
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 8:50 AM
> To: Rainer Mager
> Cc: Jakob Ostergaard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Raid5 with two failed disks?
>
> Whether or not the array is in sync should not make a difference to the
> boot process. I have both rai
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Rainer Mager wrote:
> I think my situation is the same as this "two failed disks" one but I
> haven't been following the thread carefully and I just want to double check.
>
> I have a mirrored RAID-1 setup between 2 disks with no spare disks.
> Inadvertantly the m
Hi all,
I think my situation is the same as this "two failed disks" one but I
haven't been following the thread carefully and I just want to double check.
I have a mirrored RAID-1 setup between 2 disks with no spare disks.
Inadvertantly the machine got powered down without a prop
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, I did. However, I'd add a sentence mentioning that in this case
> mkraid probably won't be destructive to the HOWTO. After the mkraid
> warning, I aborted the procedure and started asking. I think this
> should be avoided in the future.
I have
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 15:28:28 +0200, you wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Apr 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:44:49 +0200, you wrote:
>> >It _is_ in the docs.
>>
>> Which docs do you refer to? I must have missed this.
>
>Section 6.1 in http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
>
>Didn't yo
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:44:49 +0200, you wrote:
> >It _is_ in the docs.
>
> Which docs do you refer to? I must have missed this.
Section 6.1 in http://ostenfeld.dk/~jakob/Software-RAID.HOWTO/
Didn't you actually mention it yourself ? :)
(don't remember
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:44:49 +0200, you wrote:
>It _is_ in the docs.
Which docs do you refer to? I must have missed this.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
K
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:20:57 +0200, you wrote:
> >At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
> >>Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
> >>hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:20:57 +0200, you wrote:
>At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
>>Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
>>hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
>>monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 ou
handled under a different class of RAID (ignoring things like RAID 5 over
>> mirrored disks and such).
>
>You just can't do that with RAID5. I seem to remember that there's a RAID 6
>or 7 that handles 2 disk failures (multiple parity devices or something like
>tha
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> 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
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
handled under a different class of RAID (ignoring things like RAID 5 over
> > mirrored disks and such).
>
> You just can't do that with RAID5. I seem to remember that there's a RAID 6
> or 7 that handles 2 disk failures (multiple parity devices or something like
> that.
Hi Bill,
Thursday, March 30, 2000, 4:36:52 PM, you 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 mirror
Thanks to all, it worked!
ke RAID 5 over
> mirrored disks and such).
You just can't do that with RAID5. I seem to remember that there's a RAID 6
or 7 that handles 2 disk failures (multiple parity devices or something like
that.)
You can optionally do RAID 5+1 where you mirror partitions and then stripe
across them a
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Martin Bene wrote:
> At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
> >Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
> >hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
> >monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 ou
At 02:16 30.03.00, you wrote:
>Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
>hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
>monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 out of 4 disks were out
>of sync. 2 Disks have an event counter
Hi... I have a Raid5 Array, using 4 IDE HDs. A few days ago, the system
hung, no reaction, except ping from the host, nothing to see on the
monitor. I rebooted the system and it told me, 2 out of 4 disks were out
of sync. 2 Disks have an event counter of 0062, the two others
0064. I hope
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:10:13 GMT, you wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:36:18 -0500, you wrote:
>>Ok, maybe I'm on crack and need to lay off the pipe a little while, but
>>it appears that sdf7 doesn't have a partition type of "fd" and as such
>>isn't getting considered for inclusion in md0.
>
>Nope
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:36:18 -0500, you wrote:
>[Marc Haber]
>> |autorun ...
>> |considering sde7 ...
>> |adding sde7 ...
>> |adding sdd7 ...
>> |adding sdc7 ...
>> |adding sdb7 ...
>> |adding sda7 ...
>> |created md0
>
>Ok, maybe I'm on crack and need to lay off the pipe a little while, but
>it a
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:54:03 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Douglas Egan wrote:
>> When this happened to me I had to "raidhotadd" to get it back in the
>> list. What does your /proc/mdstat indicate?
>>
>> Try:
>> raidhotadd /dev/md0 /dev/sde7
>>
>
>I *think* you should 'raidhotre
have a partition type of "fd" and as such
isn't getting considered for inclusion in md0.
sde7 failure + lack of available sdf7 == 2 "failed" disks == dead raid5
James, waiting for the inevitable smack of being wrong
1 - 100 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
