On Sat, 20 May 2000, Harry Zink wrote:
> on 5/20/00 9:11 AM, Robert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I am probably doing something silly, put when applying the patch, lots
> > of the hunks seem to get rejected. Any ideas?
>
> Did you:
>
> patch -p0
> ??
>
> Did you apply them to a new, dow
on 5/20/00 9:11 AM, Robert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am probably doing something silly, put when applying the patch, lots
> of the hunks seem to get rejected. Any ideas?
Did you:
patch -p0
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Harry Zink wrote:
> > You can get the patches at:
> >
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/
> >
> > Apply them, re-compile your kernel, and this should work.
> >
> > Harry
> >
Is there any other place to get these patches? Neither the one for 2.2.14
nor the o
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Harry Zink wrote:
> You can get the patches at:
>
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/
>
> Apply them, re-compile your kernel, and this should work.
>
> Harry
>
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.2/linux-2.2.1503-Mat-2000 17:22
does not seem
Hi,
and thanks a lot to all that replied so fast. I got it up
running now with a patched kernel.
What I do not understand is that much output from mkraid
that I have already posted in my first email. Do I have
to worry about it, because it came again this time ?
Greetings,
Timo
on 5/16/00 5:43 AM, Timo Veith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then after a reboot with my newer kernel, the raid0 was gone. I tried
> to do a mkraid again, but the results were the same as before.
Uhm... did you maybe not patch your kernel source with the RAID 0.90 patches
before compiling?
You
---
I was playing with the conf file, swaping the disk order, changing
the chunksize and persistent-superblock values. But the result is
always the same.
Now, I had the possibility to try raidtools-0.90-6 on another machine.
The kernel there is the one which shipped with redhat-6.2 (2.2.14-5
[Michael T. Babcock]
> And where can I find err # 22 ... or is it not defined yet?
defined in as EINVAL
James
"Michael T. Babcock" wrote:
>
> I'm running Kernel 2.2.14 with the ReiserFS and crypto patches.
> I'm trying to use raidtools-0.90 to build a raid5 set.
>
Read the ReiserFS README. It does not work with RAID 5.
Erik.
I'm running Kernel 2.2.14 with the ReiserFS and crypto patches.
I'm trying to use raidtools-0.90 to build a raid5 set.
The configuration file is fine, as this works on another similarly
configured machine (with 2.2.12 and no ReiserFS).
I'm getting (after adding some extra debugg
Hi,
for the past week I've been fighting to get a RAID5 System running under
SuSE 6.3 linux. I have finally met success and want to share my Odysee with
you and future foolhardy people.
First thing: The Raidtools 0.90 HOWTO oversimplifies certain aspects. The
one-liner on unpackin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Alvin,
Well, after some backing up, i decided to take a risk and put a new root
drive in the machine with RedHat 6.0 and Raidtools 0.90.
Spent a good 15mins looking for ckraid which obviously didnt exist, and
digesting how the kernel now auto
hi ya chris
> I have a RAID array created using raidtools-0.41 on a 2.0.36 kernel (RedHat 5.0
> i think), which is running Linux software RAID-5 just fine.
>
> I am updating the software to RedHat v6.0 soon which uses raidtools-0.90 and a
> 2.2.5 kernel.
>
> Anyone see a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have a RAID array created using raidtools-0.41 on a 2.0.36 kernel (RedHat 5.0
i think), which is running Linux software RAID-5 just fine.
I am updating the software to RedHat v6.0 soon which uses raidtools-0.90 and a
2.2.5 kernel
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
> Well, with patch-2.2.13pre12.gz the raid0145 patch doesn't apply cleanly
> (it detects itself as partly applied.)
The raid patch is for 2.2.11, that's why. Some corrections has been included in the
raid patch
which overlaps the same corrections in 2.2.13pre12. No harm
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
>
> > Well, with patch-2.2.13pre12.gz the raid0145 patch doesn't apply cleanly
> > (it detects itself as partly applied.)
>
> The raid patch is for 2.2.11, that's why. Some corrections has been included in the
>raid patch
> whic
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
>
> > open("/dev/md0", O_RDONLY) = 4
> > ioctl(4, 0x40480923, 0x804f748) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
>
> The above indicate that you're trying to use the new raid toolchain with
> old raid kernel support.
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
> open("/dev/md0", O_RDONLY) = 4
> ioctl(4, 0x40480923, 0x804f748) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
The above indicate that you're trying to use the new raid toolchain with
old raid kernel support. You need to apply new raid patch on your kernel
code tr
Hi!
I've been wondering what the correct versions of raidtools are for
2.2.12 (or 2.2.12 with Alan Cox pre patch applied)?
With raidtools 0.90 (locally recompiled and RH6.0 versions), I get
[root@server SPECS]# /sbin/mkraid /dev/md0
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
disk 0:
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 07:54:49PM +0200, Thomas Willert wrote:
> /usr/include/linux/errno.h:4: asm/errno.h: No such file or directory
# cd /usr/src/linux
# make symlinks
L.
--
Luca Berra -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Communications Media & Services S.r.l.
> /usr/include/linux/errno.h:4: asm/errno.h: No such file or directory
You must have at least kernel headers ready. Unpack recent kernel's sources
to /usr/src/linux and make links /usr/include/{asm,linux,scsi} as suggested
in /usr/src/linux/README. You may get further then. :)
Egon
Hello,
this may not be the right forum, but:
I am having problems building Raidtools 0.90. After "configure" my "make"
fails. It seems to having problems finding some files. Please look below:
[root@flodhest raidtools-0.90]# ./configure
creating cache ./config.cache
che
I use 2.2.5-15 kernel and raidtools-0.90.
I have already constructed RAID-0 on system A.
But, today, I couldn't set up this on other system B.
All processes that I performed are exectly same..
The following is the content of /etc/raidtab.
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level0
nr
I am having trouble bringing up a raid 0 volume. I followed the instructions in Jakob
OEstergaard's document and read the man pages, but I am still getting problems. When
I run the mkraid I get the following output:
[root@ahab /etc]# /sbin/mkraid --really-force /dev/md0
DESTROYING the content
[root@merchant raidtools-0.90]# cat /etc/raidtab
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 0
nr-raid-disks 2
persistent-superblock 1
chunk-size 4
device /dev/sdb1
raid-disk 0
device /dev/sdc1
raid-disk 1
My fstab (for those interested):
/dev/sda1 / ext2def
directly to
2.2.10 with only one failed chunk that I had to hand apply) I was able to get
this working. Thanks for your help.
-Theron
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Problems with raidtools-0.90 and kernel 2.2.10
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:11:11 -0700
From: Theron J. Lewis
The following line of code in raidlib.c in the 0.90 version of raidtools is
incorrect:
#define OLD_MDTOOLS ((md_ver.major == 0) && (md_ver.minor < 0.50))
md_ver.minor is an integral type and hence the constant should be 50 not
0.50 .
(My apologies, but I am not a subscribed to this mailing li
I've asked before that the AUTODETECT code always look for PSBs in generated
RAID partitions, so that recursive RAID partitions work (e.g. RAID1 10/0+1/1+0)
Does anyone know if this has been done ?
I have started them manually and it seems to work.
Do I just have to HACK it by calling "raidstart -
>From: Chris A. Icide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Is there a maximum partition size and maximum number of real devices (I
>know about MAX_REAL in the md_k.h file) that can be used on the Sparc
>platform?
>
>I've recompiled the kernel with MAX_REAL set to 64, and it still limits me
>to 12.
>
There is
Is there a maximum partition size and maximum number of real devices (I
know about MAX_REAL in the md_k.h file) that can be used on the Sparc
platform?
I've recompiled the kernel with MAX_REAL set to 64, and it still limits me
to 12.
The reason I'm looking for a number so high, is that I can't s
what kernel and patch are you using, and is this redhat 5.2?
allan
"so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max Cavalera
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Bruno Derrien wrote:
>
> I
I'm using raidtools 0.90 .
My RAID-1 device, /dev/md1 consists of two partitions: /dev/sdb1 (mirror 0)
and /dev/sdc1 (mirror 1).
The disk with /dev/sdb1 fails and is replaced with a new disk.
When I try to reactive RAID I get :
Starting up RAID devices
(read) sdb1's sb offset: 21124
Hi,
set MD partitions type to 83 (linux native) and reboot your system.
Now try mkraid. Seems that MD autodetection disable mkraid proper actions.
For autodetection change type to 0xfd.
Best wishes,
> [root@tekelili]# mkraid /dev/md0
> handling MD device /dev/md0
> analyzing super-block
> disk
Yee wrote:
> I've set up a 2.2.0pre8 system (with raid in the kernel) and built and
> installed raidtools-0.90. When I run mkraid, I get the follow
> results. (I've tried this for raid-1 and raid-5 devices, too.)
>
> [root@tekelili]# mkraid /dev/md0
> handling MD device /de
> [root@tekelili]# mkraid /dev/md0
> handling MD device /dev/md0
> analyzing super-block
> disk 0: /dev/sdb1, 1028128kB, raid superblock at 1028032kB
> disk 1: /dev/sdc1, 1028128kB, raid superblock at 1028032kB
> disk 2: /dev/sdd1, 1028128kB, raid superblock at 1028032kB
> disk 3: /dev/sde1, 10281
I've set up a 2.2.0pre8 system (with raid in the kernel) and built and
installed raidtools-0.90. When I run mkraid, I get the follow
results. (I've tried this for raid-1 and raid-5 devices, too.)
[root@tekelili]# mkraid /dev/md0
handling MD device /dev/md0
analyzing super-block
di
Louis Mandelstam wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
>
> > #swapoff -a
> > #dd if=/dev/zero of=swapfile bs=1k count=1
> > #mkswap swapfile
> > #losetup /dev/loop3 swapfile
> > #swapon /dev/loop3
> > #free
> > total used free sharedbuffers
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
> #swapoff -a
> #dd if=/dev/zero of=swapfile bs=1k count=1
> #mkswap swapfile
> #losetup /dev/loop3 swapfile
> #swapon /dev/loop3
> #free
> total used free sharedbuffers cached
> Mem:144044 141608
here is what i've tried on 2.0.36 on a raid 5 file system to
show it can be done, but I don't normally run this way because
of comments about locking up if resources are unavailable
#swapoff -a
#dd if=/dev/zero of=swapfile bs=1k count=1
#mkswap swapfile
#losetup /dev/loop3 swapfile
#swapon /d
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Bruno Prior wrote:
> Haven't tried it myself, but I've had two different reports that swap on RAID-1
> works, from people who didn't realise that it _shouldn't_ work. I encouraged them to
> post their experiences to the list, but I don't think either of them did. Could it be
> In fact it's quite simple: the md device doesn't currently support swap
> partitions (or swapping to files on an md device).
Haven't tried it myself, but I've had two different reports that swap on RAID-1
works, from people who didn't realise that it _shouldn't_ work. I encouraged them to
post
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
> > In fact it's quite simple: the md device doesn't currently support swap
> > partitions (or swapping to files on an md device).
>
> it's quite simple: it should work just fine, if not then it's a bug. (i've
> tested it and it works, but YMMV, bug repo
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Louis Mandelstam wrote:
> In fact it's quite simple: the md device doesn't currently support swap
> partitions (or swapping to files on an md device).
it's quite simple: it should work just fine, if not then it's a bug. (i've
tested it and it works, but YMMV, bug reports
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Bohumil Chalupa wrote:
> IMHO there's no reason for using raid0 (striped) partition for swap.
> If you use two swap partitions with equal priority, the kernel does
> the striping automatically.
>
> Another reason why NOT to use ANY RAID device for swap is that
> it may allo
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Jorge Nerin wrote:
> I want to setup a raid0 stripped swap partition in an old 386 with 2
> hd. It has 2.2.0-pre1, and raidtools-0.90, raid0 is a module and its
> loaded when trying to do this.
IMHO there's no reason for using raid0 (striped) partition fo
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Jorge Nerin wrote:
> I want to setup a raid0 stripped swap partition in an old 386 with 2
> hd. It has 2.2.0-pre1, and raidtools-0.90, raid0 is a module and its
> loaded when trying to do this.
You can pursue this, but you should see Question 18 of the Soft
I want to setup a raid0 stripped swap partition in an old 386 with 2
hd. It has 2.2.0-pre1, and raidtools-0.90, raid0 is a module and its
loaded when trying to do this.
I have tried with partitions id of 82 (linux swap) and fd (raid0??),
and it always fails at the same place...
#/etc
Letting the chips fall where they may, I quote Randy Johnson:
>RAIDTAB
>
># raiddev configuration file
>
>raiddev /dev/md0
>raid-level0
>nr-raid-disks 4
>nr-spare-disks0
>chunk-size8
>
>device/dev/sda1
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 1998 10:13 PM
To: Roberto Rivera
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; David Harris
Subject: RE: Raidtools-0.90
Hi,
I was just talking to Chance Reschke through e-mail about "mkraid" with
the
raid-0 personality. He states that you do have to use the "mk
mkraid with raid-0" mis-conception is a symptom of the old
documentation. That was true with the older version. However, the 0.90
version requires a superblock on the raid-0 array.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well I am trying to create a striped(raid 0) raid drive. I read in the
document and man page that mkraid can't be used for striped drives. Is
there some other step required? Thanks for such a quick reply.
Robert
18, 1998 10:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Raidtools-0.90
Hello,
I downloaded the raidtools-19981214-0.90 file and patch. I have been
trying to configure the raid drive so that I can then format it and then
mount in it. I would like to test it out but maybe I'm typing the
com
Hello,
I downloaded the raidtools-19981214-0.90 file and patch. I have been
trying to configure the raid drive so that I can then format it and then
mount in it. I would like to test it out but maybe I'm typing the
commands wrong. The error I get is:
invalid raid superblock magic on hda
Hi,
Is there any real documentation out there on raidtools-0.90 and the 0.90
kernel md device driver? I was happily using my own patched version 0.36.0
and now I'm trying to upgrade.
All of the raid HOWTO's and FAQ's are horribly out of date. The included
documentation to the rai
[...]
> The short-end of it is that you must apply the kernel patches
> that are a companion to the raidtools-0.90 -- stock kernel
> is not compatible with those tools.
Ok, thanks for the help. The raid0145-19981110-2.0.35.gz doesn't apply to
2.0.36. I'd be happy to test any
quot;aborted" down to a failed ioctl() invocation
(mkraid should output a nicer message).
The short-end of it is that you must apply the kernel patches
that are a companion to the raidtools-0.90 -- stock kernel
is not compatible with those tools.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all. Ok, I figured out the message in /pub/linux/daemons/raid points to an
old version of the raidtools, so I got 0.90 to compile on 2.0.36.
However, it appears mdadd is now replaced with mkraid, but it doesn't work for
me:
[root@devel raidtools-0.90]# ./mkraid --configfile /etc/ra
SYSTEM: 2.0.35 SuSE 5.3 (with clean 2.0.35 source)
PROBLEM: raidtools compile error
CAUSE: gcc 2.7.1 include file sys/mount.h doesn't define BLKGETSIZE
SOLUTION 1: change mkpv.c adding an include line
#include /* for BLKGETSIZE (original source)*/
#include/* for BLKGETSIZ
I just did a virgin install of RH 5.1 on a machine. I upgraded the
kernel to 2.1.125 and installed raidtools-0.90 and tried to stripe
2 9gig barracudas as md0. I edited the raidtab file (included below)
and ran raidstart -a. It gives the following error:
# /sbin/raidstart -a
/dev/md0
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Mike Tvarkunas wrote:
> I keep seeing mentions of Raidtools0.90, but all I seem to be able to find
> is 0.50? Where is 0.90 being hid at? Can someone send me that addy,
> please! :)
It's in the 'alpha' code directory. The URL is
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/
I keep seeing mentions of Raidtools0.90, but all I seem to be able to find
is 0.50? Where is 0.90 being hid at? Can someone send me that addy,
please! :)
Thanks
Mike
Hi everone (Ingo ? :-)
I experience severe problems with the above raid patches and putting swap on a raid1
array (Pentium 233 MMX, 64 MB RAM, 2940UW, 2 UW IBM DDRS 4 GB scsi disks). The system
crashes consistently under heavy load (bonnie, exorcist etc.) while running fine for 3
days under (a
62 matches
Mail list logo
