At 11:36 26.04.00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Stay away from the ``dangerous'' code.
>So should I use the older raidtools at kernel.org? What are people using?
I'm using raidtools from kernel.org (...0824... if I recall correctly) and
2.2.14 kernel patch from
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/rai
>> Under
>> , the file is labeled "dangerous". But I can't use
>> the 2.2.11 code under kernel.org 'cause 2.2.11 has that nasty little TCP
>> memory leak bug
>
>Stay away from the ``dangerous'' code.
So should I use the older raidtools at kernel.org? What are people using?
Regards,
Brian
In
>All the RAID code is "dangerous" even the old 0.40 stuff. The 2.2.11 patch
>works all the way up to 2.2.13, for 2.2.14 you need Ingo's patch from the
>above site. RAIDtools-0.90 is the version you want.
So do I take Ingo's raidtools or the one on kernel.org? Sorry for repeating
the question, b
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a
> > year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having
> > a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to
> > recov
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a
> year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having
> a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to
> recover with the
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 10:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: stability of 0.90
>
>
> I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a
> fileserver for over a
>
I've been running raid1 (kernel 2.0, then 2.2) on a fileserver for over a
year now. I have suddenly seen the need to upgrade to raid0.90 after having
a powerfailure+UPS failure; I _need_ hot recovery (12GB takes about 2hrs to
recover with the current code!). How stable is 0.90? Under
, the file is
