>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 9/6/99, 10:25:34 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Raid
Problems:
> install the old raidtools (0.5)
>
install the old raidtools (0.5)
or use the newest (0.9) with the 0.9 kernel patches
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Matthew wrote:
> I am running Mandrake 6.0, I installed the raid tools, and loaded the
> raid1 module using insmod raid1. When I issue an lsmod raid1 is
> listed.
>
> When I cat the /proc/
Matthew wrote:
>
> I am running Mandrake 6.0, I installed the raid tools, and loaded the
> raid1 module using insmod raid1. When I issue an lsmod raid1 is
> listed.
>
> When I cat the /proc/mdstat file it says:
> Personalities : [3 raid1]
> read_ahead not set
> md0 : inactive
> md1 : inactive
; Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Raid Problems
>
>
> Make sure you don't have any of these drives/partitions mounted, try
> mkraid -f /dev/md0, to force the creation of the devices.
>
> I had the same problem, and had to use more fo
Make sure you don't have any of these drives/partitions mounted, try
mkraid -f /dev/md0, to force the creation of the devices.
I had the same problem, and had to use more forceful measures to create
the array.
Marco
> handling MD device /dev/md0
> analyzing super-block
> disk0: /dev/sdb1, 444
[posted&mailed]
Nick Vermeer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have linux-2.2.6 + raid-0145-2.2.6 patches running on an SMP Dual PIII-500 w/
> 512MB ram
>
> 2 Adaptec 2940U2W's w/ IBM 9.1 Gig 10,000RPM LVD drives
>
> Current config
>
> SCSI IDControler Card
> 0
Explanation could be the following:
---
This drive does not appreciate initiators that are very unfair at
arbitrating for the SCSI BUS and tells such initiators about by using
unexpected bus free conditions. I can reproduce at will the problem
using a SYM53C896
I'm no expert, but here's a suggestion, in your kernel compile don't allow
multiple luns, and in your scsi card configs, turn 'allow disconnect' off on
those drives.
Russell
On 26-May-99 Nick Vermeer* wrote:
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Raid problems
>
> I have linux-2.2.6 + raid-0145-2.
I've moved the PCI cards, and the cables are well withen spec (Max length is 12m
on LVD) I have literally changed out all the hardware and the problem reoccurs,
yet another chain in the same box with the same equipment works perfectly.
I'm pondering trying 2.2.7 to see if that has any bearing.
> May 22 00:45:10 shamu kernel: (scsi1:0:1:-1) Unexpected busfree, LASTPHASE =0x40,
>SEQADDR = 0x15d
> May 22 00:45:10 shamu kernel: (scsi1:0:1:0) No active SCB for reconnecting target -
>Issuing BUS DEVICE RESET.
> May 22 00:45:10 shamu kernel: (scsi1:0:1:0) SAVED_TCL=0x10, ARG_1=0xff,
It's not my machine, so no... sorry not yet... but I can say that
downgrading to 2.2.7 works for me
I will be looking at this again at some stage but I'm no C programmer
James
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Shaun Sharples wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I seem to be having exactly the same problem.. CPU ti
Hi
I followed the discussion and wanted something to say about the
"changed" topic,
which is now more "learning in a real enviroment or not".
First time I started with linux on my machine at home, I thought like
"hm, linux is
much better than windows as I was told so I can sweep away my windows
[ I've delayed reply to this one to try to work out how to express myself
better, but have failed, so sorry -- it's not as clear as I'd hoped
]
>> o Learning
>> Granted, no speed improvements, but you can learn about it.
>> Knowledge like that comes in handy in Interviews ;-)
> But y
I would like to thank everyone for helping me solve my RAID problems.
With the kernel patch everything seems to work ok now. I see great
increases in speed over the raid-0.50 I was running before. I was
attempting to use a single disk as a raid because I was testing it before
i put it on a prod
Ok,
thanks for the answer; I didn't get in this conflict, but I wondered,
because it seemed that the raidtools are able to recognize the devices
on which raid is built and check if there are multiple devices instead
of only one.
For testing and some other things it may be a good idea to set up ra
Thanks for the many responses, everyone. Just so you know, the reason
I am creating a raid on a single disk is because I am testing the
raidtools before I put it on some larger file servers. I have run
into a new problem now. When I run raidstart I get an error. I first
created /etc/raidtab
I have done a similar setup on 2.0.36 (same version of raidtools &
patches, Redhat), three partitions on the same physical disk, in order
to get the hang of 0.90 before putting it on my production server. I
assume that's what you're (he's) doing.
It works with a bunch of partitions on t
Well, I didn't get a reject updating from 2.2.8 to 2.2.9, but looking, I
have manually merged this file before Also, I didn't test the patches
with 2.2.8, although 2.2.7 worked fine.
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 1999, A James Lewis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'
On Sat, 15 May 1999, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Chris Price wrote:
> >
> > Robert, why are you running raid on 1 disk???
> >
> > What benefit do you expect to derive from running raid on a single
> > disk?
> >
> > Unless you have a special application, there is **NO**
On Sat, 15 May 1999, A James Lewis wrote:
Hi,
I've patched my kernel to 2.2.9 (After applying the 19990421-2.2.6 (To
2.2.6)...
It worked until 2.2.9, then it appears to work but an array will
never sync under 2.2.9... it just gradually increases the estimated time
to completio
Hi
Will the raidtools recognize that there is only one device?
I think, he wants to set up raid only on one disk for testing.
Greetings, Dietmar
m. allan noah wrote:
>
> you dont want to do this. the raid code wont let you IIRC.
> raid is for spreading your data across multiple drives, for da
> mkraid: aborted
As I have pointed out several times on this list, the above message actually
means "Please see /var/log/messages for details".
As others have pointed out, having multiple RAID0 partitions on the same disk
isn't a good idea (at least, not with single head-per-surface disks), a
Chris Price wrote:
>
> Robert, why are you running raid on 1 disk???
>
> What benefit do you expect to derive from running raid on a single
> disk?
>
> Unless you have a special application, there is **NO** point to
> creating a raid array from one disk.
>
>
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Robert (Drew) Norman wrote:
> I have a IBM 9GB drive split into 3 partitions of equal size.
>
> raiddev /dev/md0
> raid-level0
> nr-raid-disks 3
> nr-spare-disks0
> chunk-size16
>
> device
Hi
Most of the problems with raidtools 0.90 belong to a missing kernel
patch, a missing "--really-force"-option to mkraid and a missing
recompilation of the kernel and last a reboot to activte the new
raidtools.
Are you sure that you have done all those things before?
Greetings, Dietmar
Robert
Robert, why are you running raid on 1 disk???
What benefit do you expect to derive from running raid on a single
disk?
Unless you have a special application, there is **NO** point to
creating a raid array from one disk.
Chris
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Robert (
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Robert (Drew) Norman wrote:
> I can not get raidtools-0.90 to work. I have attempted everything I know
> to do. I have used the raidtools-0.50 before with no problems. I am
> running the following:
have you patched the 2.2.8 kernel with the latest RAID driver patch? You
27 matches
Mail list logo
