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
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.
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 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 you actually
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
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
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
nt: 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 raid1 and raid 5 systems that run root raid and
will boot qu
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 raid1 and raid 5 systems that run root raid and
will boot quite nicely and rsync automatically after a "dumb" shutdown
that lea
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
monitor. I rebooted the system and
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:17:06 -0500, you wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:36:52AM -0600, Bill Carlson 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
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 out of 4 disks were out
of
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 out of 4 disks were out
of sync.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:36:52AM -0600, Bill Carlson 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
mirrored
Thanks to all, it worked!
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 mirrored
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:36:52AM -0600, Bill Carlson 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
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 looks
18 matches
Mail list logo
