I found this patch also (directed to it via the HOWTO)... is it possible
to post Ingo's patches to the kernel.org ftp sites?
donfede
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Nic Benders wrote:
> I used Ingo's patch from
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0
> and it built without iss
I used Ingo's patch from
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/raid-2.2.16-A0
and it built without issue. There is also a 2.2.17 patch that applies
cleanly against the Alan Cox's 2.2.17pre13 code for me.
-Nic Benders
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Reid Sutherland wrote:
> Does anyone have
Hello,
Does anyone have a patch that will patch properly for 2.2.16?
I've looked on kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha but found only
2.2.12 patches and nothing later.
Thank you.
-reid
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> kernel 2.2.15 with raid 0.90, debian potato and raidtools2.
>
> can i build my raid now with hda3 and hdb3 and change the hard
> disks later (so hdb will become hdc), or will this get me into big trouble ?
Assuming you're using RAID au
kernel 2.2.15 with raid 0.90, debian potato and raidtools2.
can i build my raid now with hda3 and hdb3 and change the hard
disks later (so hdb will become hdc), or will this get me into big trouble ?
thanks for advice.
regards, andreas
I haven't looked at 2.2.15, but the patch for 2.2.14 is at
http://www.redhat.com/~mingo/
Greg
> -Original Message-
> From: A James Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 7:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Raid 0.90
On Thu, 4 May 2000, A James Lewis wrote:
> I know it's a pretty tall order since most of the core development work is
> against the 2.3.x kernel. BUT
>
> Has anyone got a working patch against 2.2.15 or even 2.2.14?
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/raid-patches/
Steph
Hi all,
I know it's a pretty tall order since most of the core development work is
against the 2.3.x kernel. BUT
Has anyone got a working patch against 2.2.15 or even 2.2.14?
A. James Lewis ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Linux is swift and powerful. Beware its wrath...
Today I upgraded my 0.42 raid to 0.90 on a production server. The
difference is astounding! Well done to all involved. It looks like Software
raid is getting close to the point of making hardware raid redundant (but
not in a good way :)
..Brian
Init Systems - Linux consulting
(031) 765-5269 (082
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, Achim Flammenkamp wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yesterday I tried to set up a Software-Raid following
> The Software-RAID HOWTO by Jakob OEstergaard
>
> In principle it seemed to work but a single problem aroses.
>
> I 'm running a Linux-2.2.14 Kernel patched with the raid0145-19990824
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> I myself really need working RAID(1) code, but current 2.3.99 kernels
> don't even have compilable RAID1 code in them :-(
>
> Any change for raid-code keepers to get their act together and publish
> something working ? Or must I simply reinstall my dev
I myself really need working RAID(1) code, but current 2.3.99 kernels
don't even have compilable RAID1 code in them :-(
Any change for raid-code keepers to get their act together and publish
something working ? Or must I simply reinstall my development machines
without RAID ?
I myself can't upd
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Ed Byrne wrote:
> I just set up a RAID on a machine with the following setup.
>
> Linux 2.2.14 + raid-2.2.14-B1 patch, raidtools-19990824-0.90
>
> sda1: boot partition (256mb)
> sda2: raid-disk 0 (8.5gb)
>
> sdb1: swap (256mb)
> sdb2: raid-disk 1(8.5gb)
>
> Setup was fine
I just set up a RAID on a machine with the following setup.
Linux 2.2.14 + raid-2.2.14-B1 patch, raidtools-19990824-0.90
sda1: boot partition (256mb)
sda2: raid-disk 0 (8.5gb)
sdb1: swap (256mb)
sdb2: raid-disk 1(8.5gb)
Setup was fine and it worked great, until I actually tested drive loss.
I
Considering the RAID merge in progress and current LDP state (pointing
to Linas' old howto), this would seem to be a wise change
--- linux-2.3.47-3/Documentation/Configure.help Wed Feb 16 23:34:06 2000
+++ linux-2.3.47-3/Documentation/Configure.help.new Thu Feb 17 22:44:00 2000
@@ -1273,7 +12
Thomas Waldmann wrote:
>
> > > Well, although all of reiser/ext3-fs and raid are very fine stuff, I would
> > > definitely vote for SW-RAID to be preferred (if they can´t be included
> > > alltogether due to incompatibilities)
>
> !
>
> > Thankfully, they can and will be living happily together
> > Well, although all of reiser/ext3-fs and raid are very fine stuff, I would
> > definitely vote for SW-RAID to be preferred (if they can´t be included
> > alltogether due to incompatibilities)
!
> Thankfully, they can and will be living happily together,
This would be, of course, the best.
t than they've already got :)
> - because it´s been there for a much longer time
True.
> and because it gives important functionality and saves $xxx(x)
> for not having to buy a HW raid controller. Ext3 and ReiserFS "only" give
> faster recovery times and better perfo
ive
faster recovery times and better performance and are not as widespread in
use as RAID 0.90 is (IMHO).
> Absolutely, but keep in mind that while we (on this list) despire
> 0.4x RAID, it is still running on many systems (more than we'd like :)
I made quite some 0.90 raid systems (about
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 01:43:38PM +0100, Holger Kiehl wrote:
>
...[snip]...
>
> Here is my original post from 17th January:
>
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > here is the first alpha version of the '2.4 RAID merge' patch against
> > pre4-2.3.40:
> >
> > http://www.red
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>
> To everyone on linux-raid:
> It seems improbable that the 0.90 raid stuff will go into 2.4 currently. This
> is catastrophic. We need to try Ingo's patch, and give it all the testing we
> can. If enough people try the patch and we can give a
[ Saturday, January 22, 2000 ] Michael wrote:
> Gee, I'd like to see it in 2.2 and 2.3. I'm getting real tired of
> applying the patches to new builds -- which I've been doing now for a
> couple of years (like you). How stable does it need to be?? Haven't
> had one break yet!!!
>
> Currently h
kernel does largely force them onto
the distributions and thusly their users.
I guess I just want to make sure that we don't get our hopes up about
2.4.0 having RAID 0.90... I hope it happens as much as anyone, but
if Ingo's willing to maintain a patch still, I think as users we
can be wi
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 12:38:04AM -0500, Joseph Malicki wrote:
> Is there a raid patch for 2.3 kernels? Or are they already in? I recently
> tried to run 2.3.39 recently and it couldn't find my RAID array created
> with RedHat 6.1..
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/
Try the ibc-ext2-raid-2.3
Is there a raid patch for 2.3 kernels? Or are they already in? I recently
tried to run 2.3.39 recently and it couldn't find my RAID array created
with RedHat 6.1..
Joseph Malicki
Isn't there a way to make old and new raid code cohexist in the
kernel tree, with an option at kernel configuration ?
Like that, people would not complain it breaks their old array.
Then when everybody will have upgraded their arrays, we will simply
make old stuff disappear.
Christophe
On sam, oct 02, 1999 at 01:18:34 -0700, Jones, Clay wrote:
> I'm not sure if there is a political reason why the "alpha" raid is not in
> the kernel. It's been available since 2.0.30 as a patch (well over a year I
> think).
It was actually put in some 2.2.11-prex (or was it 12-prex), and was ba
I noticed the following cosmetic problems using Raid 0.90 (19990824)
on a 2.0.38 kernel:
1) When the raid 0.90 patch is applyed in the kernel source tree, then
trying to compile a kernel that does not have CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD set
will fail with:
drivers/block/block.a(ll_rw_blk.o): In
After investigating a bit more, it seems that the boot process
prompting for 'root' password is due to the need to patch a
bit the /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit script. solved.
Now 'raidstart /dev/md0' still refuses to run on 2.0.37 RAID 0.90
patched kernel and the exact returned c
I just installed raid 1 feature for the small disks (2 x 8 Gb)
on my production server (for the large ones, 4 x 50 Gb, i'll wait a bit
since reloading the datas in case of failure would require to feed many
many CDs whereas I have an additional disk to disk backup for the small
disks)
When bootin
Try the mirror sites, i.e. ftp.gz.us.kernel.org.
It's in pub/linux/daemons/raid/alpha directory.
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, morlight wrote:
> Hi ,Everybody :
>
> I'm using RH 6.0 linux and have load raid-tools
> 0.90.I want to learn the detail of raid .But I
> cann't get the source code of 0.90. It
Hi ,Everybody :
I'm using RH 6.0 linux and have load raid-tools
0.90.I want to learn the detail of raid .But I
cann't get the source code of 0.90. It only has
0.50'src On ftp.kernel.org.
Is there anybody who can help me?
morlight liu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 02:11:46PM +0200, Giulio Botto wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 09:12:02AM +0200, paolo furieri thusly shaped the electrons:
> > I am using raid-1 0.90 on 2.2.5-22 redhat kernel, and I experienced a lot of
> > instability problem: services (http, syslog, named ...) stay up
Giulio Botto wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 09:12:02AM +0200, paolo furieri thusly shaped the electrons:
> > I am using raid-1 0.90 on 2.2.5-22 redhat kernel, and I experienced a lot of
> > instability problem: services (http, syslog, named ...) stay up for some
> > hours, then they suddenly
I'm using RAID1 on a 2.2.6 system without problems. (Caldera
OpenLinux-2.2)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of paolo furieri
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 12:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: raid 0.90
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 09:12:02AM +0200, paolo furieri thusly shaped the electrons:
> I am using raid-1 0.90 on 2.2.5-22 redhat kernel, and I experienced a lot of
> instability problem: services (http, syslog, named ...) stay up for some
> hours, then they suddenly go down. Then I am waiting for
I am using raid-1 0.90 on 2.2.5-22 redhat kernel, and I experienced a lot of
instability problem: services (http, syslog, named ...) stay up for some
hours, then they suddenly go down. Then I am waiting for a new raid patch for
new kernels. But I have seen in mailing-list that 2.2 kernel has files
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, m. allan noah wrote:
> > 1) only 1 problem:
> > if I run an "halt", all is ok, md stops correctly, so on
> > reboot I have no reconstruction.
> >
> > if I run "reboot", raid doesn't stop, so at reboot, I have a
> > reconstruction of raid. from some test (but witho
I have installed raid 0.90 & kernel 2.0.36, I have 2 md mirror partition,
/ and /u (all partition type fd)
all runs ok, configuration is quite complex but not impossible, thanks to mail
on this mailing-list.
1) only 1 problem:
if I run an "halt", all is ok, md stops correctly
ok i am responding inside
"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, 2 Mar 1999, paolo furieri wrote:
> I have installed raid 0.90 & kernel 2.0.36, I h
40 matches
Mail list logo
