On 11/12/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IO bound problems on disk writes is being worked on right now (I'm
actually testing and debugging right now). It will most likely be
solved in a few days.
One of my slave backends, a P3-733 with 2xPVR-250's, mounting the
/myth
On 10/27/05, Brian C. Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Bryan Halter wrote:
Well to start with for RAID you need to have disks that are all the same
size (preferably the same model). I believe Linux supports growing
software RAID volumes and I'm sure
] An LVM'd drive died! What do I do...
On 10/27/05, Brian C. Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Bryan Halter wrote:
Well to start with for RAID you need to have disks that are all the same
size (preferably the same model). I believe Linux supports growing
software
First I had no raid, just a single 300g drive. I found that with 4
tuners going, and 3 machines trying to commerical flag, watching even
a single frontend was impossible without either stuttering video,
choppy FFW, IO Bound on disk writes, network saturation, or some
combo of the above. So I
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:35:39AM -0700, Blammo wrote:
So, my advice, in the short? Buy good hardware, set it up in ways
known to be stable, and it will serve you well. You get what you pay
for.
On a related note - watch the drive temperatures! Before I upgraded to
RAID5 I had three hard
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 01:13:39PM -0400, Steve Adeff wrote:
On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:42, Erik Karlin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
On 10/27/05, David Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must admit you have me quite intrigued by this RAID
On Friday 11 November 2005 11:57, Erik Karlin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 01:13:39PM -0400, Steve Adeff wrote:
On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:42, Erik Karlin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
On 10/27/05, David Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
You could go SATA, but IDE is gonna be cheaper, and I haven't had any
problems with performance yet.
Nowadays SATA and IDE are more or less the same price, but SATA is much
more convenient to work with and more reliable. I'd
On Thursday 27 October 2005 16:06, Brandon Beattie wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:42:15PM -0500, Andrew Close wrote:
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Hopefully in the next few months myth will support storing to multiple
directories, which would remove
On 10/28/05, Steve Adeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
I had a similar concept, though slightly different, i think... My idea was to
have a general mythtv recordings directory, under which all harddrives would
be mounted (ie /mythrec/1 /mythrec/2 /mythrec/3 etc). Have one for new
recordings.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:30:07AM -0400, Steve Adeff wrote:
noone has yet mentioned S.M.A.R.T. yet. After I went through a stint of
loosing 2 hd's in a week's time (due to powersupply problems) I looked
into things and found
David Bennett wrote:
... fortunately this has not happened (yet!) but I am preparing for the worst.
Unfortunately this happened to me last week, one of my drives in a 2
drive LVM started getting all sorts of weird timeouts. It hasn't been
seen since :-(
You can find all this in the docs. In
Wow...
this is stressing me out. So basically by adding another drive to my
LVM group (which I assume means I am not striping I increased the
size of my drive at the cost of now giving 2 harddrives a chance to
fail instead of one. (shooot especially considering my luck with
hard drives.)
I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Bennett
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2005 5:30 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] An LVM'd drive died! What do I do...
Wow...
this is stressing me out. So basically by adding
On Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:35 PM, Bryan Halter wrote:
As far as I know if you lose a disk in an LVM dies you're SOL.
Wrong. At least for the LVM, obviously you've lost that disk.
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:41:28 +0900, David Bennett wrote:
I have seen the same article about reducing the
[snip]
You can find out how your logical volumes are split by using:
lvdisplay -m
That lists the mapping to physical volumes.
You can give a physical volume name to lvcreate and lvextend to control
the placement in future. You can use pvmove to fix any split logical
volumes you already
David Bennett wrote:
(And on another note, is a 2 disk raid even worth it? If one of the
hard drives develops an error, will that not corrupt its partner?)
What does everyone think? Help me develop the poor mans backup...
(not only do I keep my Video files on the LVM (which I can afford to
On 10/27/05, Martin Ebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:35 PM, Bryan Halter wrote: As far as I know if you lose a disk in an LVM dies you're SOL.Wrong. At least for the LVM, obviously you've lost that disk.On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:41:28 +0900, David Bennett wrote:
I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bryan Halter
As far as I know if you lose a disk in an LVM dies you're
SOL. If you
need redundancy and want a scheme that allows you to have a
huge folume
look into RAID-5. It allows you n-1
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:26:47PM -0500, Korey Fort wrote:
As far as I know if you lose a disk in an LVM dies you're SOL. If you
Untrue, you only lose everything if it is the first drive (Unless
something really odd happens). I've tested just pulling a drive and
shrinking the lvm and it did
David Bennett wrote:
Wow...
this is stressing me out. So basically by adding another drive to my
LVM group (which I assume means I am not striping I increased the
size of my drive at the cost of now giving 2 harddrives a chance to
fail instead of one. (shooot especially considering my luck
Martin Ebourne wrote:
Key points to learn from this to save your data:
...
3. Don't split logical volumes over physical volumes unless you absolutely
have to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the LV for the recordings directory
have to be split over physical volumes to create a
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 19:43, David Bennett wrote:
... fortunately this has not happened (yet!) but I am preparing for the
worst.
Jarod's MythTV guide recommends LVM as an option to create nice and
big MythTV partitions. I followed the guide and have recently added
another 250G to my
On Oct 27, 2005 03:02 PM, David Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I must admit you have me quite intrigued by this RAID 5.
So heres the deal, I am going to go out and buy some disks.
Anything I need to know before I start?
How (and what) do I need to know to setup a software Raid 5 on my
linux?
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Bryan Halter wrote:
Well to start with for RAID you need to have disks that are all the same
size (preferably the same model). I believe Linux supports growing
software RAID volumes and I'm sure someone will correct me if it
doesn't. Personally I'd go out
To answer the OP's question.
Tough. You WILL have lost data - maybe not everything.
You should have used RAID5 then the answer would have been:
take the dead disk out and put in a replacement, wait a few hours and
you're good to go
Brandon Beattie wrote:
quite a bit that I happen to disagree
On Thursday 27 October 2005 11:51, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:42 -0400, Bryan Halter wrote:
Well to start with for RAID you need to have disks that are all the same
size (preferably the same model). I believe Linux supports growing
software RAID volumes and I'm sure
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
On 10/27/05, David Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must admit you have me quite intrigued by this RAID 5.
So heres the deal, I am going to go out and buy some disks.
Anything I need to know before I start?
250GB disks
On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:07, Alexander Fisher wrote:
Other hints ...
Don't put more than one ide drive on a single ide channel. A failing
drive often takes out the bus. SATA drives make sense, but SMART
support for SATA is still under development. You should also make
sure that your
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
Other hints ...
Don't put more than one ide drive on a single ide channel. A failing
drive often takes out the bus. SATA drives make sense, but SMART
support for SATA is still under development. You should also make
sure
Brandon Beattie wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
Other hints ...
Don't put more than one ide drive on a single ide channel. A failing
drive often takes out the bus. SATA drives make sense, but SMART
support for SATA is still under development. You
On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:42, Erik Karlin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
On 10/27/05, David Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must admit you have me quite intrigued by this RAID 5.
So heres the deal, I am going to go out and buy some
On Thursday 27 October 2005 13:02, Brandon Beattie wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:07:50PM +0100, Alexander Fisher wrote:
Other hints ...
Don't put more than one ide drive on a single ide channel. A failing
drive often takes out the bus. SATA drives make sense, but SMART
support for
Steve Adeff wrote:
does raid10 do parity? I thought raid 10 required a backup harddrive for every
drive in the array?
RAID 10 is stripping across mirrored sets, no parity, just mirrors.
Kevin
___
mythtv-users mailing list
Also, I wonder if there is any easy way to get the info off from my
current 2 drive LVM onto the raid? (I would like to use
some of these
LVM drives to be put in this raid).
This could be tricky. I can't think of a way to do this at
the moment. If you can consolidate this data
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:04:14PM +0100, David wrote:
Raid to several of us who run TB+ LVM's for a myth box
is a dumb idea.
No it's not.
I said several, not everyone. :) My reasons for not doing raid are $100
for an extra HD drive that doesn't add raw space, matching partition
sizes
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:04:14PM +0100, David wrote:
(and shrinking - if you happen to be the one geek in the world who uses
less disk space over time) and reallocation of space.
Let me explain my current setup and give you one of many reasons
someone may want to shrink a FS, and why I'm not
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Hopefully in the next few months myth will support storing to multiple
directories, which would remove the need for LVM or having to worry
about losing anything but what was on that drive.
excellent thread! :) i had to come back to
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:42:15PM -0500, Andrew Close wrote:
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Hopefully in the next few months myth will support storing to multiple
directories, which would remove the need for LVM or having to worry
about losing anything but
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:54:45 +1300, Robin Gilks wrote:
[snip]
You can find out how your logical volumes are split by using:
lvdisplay -m
That lists the mapping to physical volumes.
You can give a physical volume name to lvcreate and lvextend to control
the placement in future. You can use
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:57:46 -0400, Michael T. Dean wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the LV for the recordings directory
have to be split over physical volumes to create a recordings directory
that's larger than your largest disk? If so, I guess you're talking about
other
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:42:15PM -0500, Andrew Close wrote:
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Hopefully in the next few months myth will support storing to multiple
directories, which would remove the need
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:30:07AM -0400, Steve Adeff wrote:
noone has yet mentioned S.M.A.R.T. yet. After I went through a stint of
loosing 2 hd's in a week's time (due to powersupply problems) I looked into
things and found smartctl, which monitors the smart status of drives and can
even
Andrew Close wrote:
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:42:15PM -0500, Andrew Close wrote:
On 10/27/05, Brandon Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Hopefully in the next few months myth will support storing to multiple
... fortunately this has not happened (yet!) but I am preparing for the worst.
Jarod's MythTV guide recommends LVM as an option to create nice and
big MythTV partitions. I followed the guide and have recently added
another 250G to my original drive with Mytbtv-users help.
A hard drive failure on
David Bennett wrote:
... fortunately this has not happened (yet!) but I am preparing for the worst.
Jarod's MythTV guide recommends LVM as an option to create nice and
big MythTV partitions. I followed the guide and have recently added
another 250G to my original drive with Mytbtv-users help.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Halter
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:35 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] An LVM'd drive died! What do I do...
David Bennett wrote:
... fortunately this has
I have seen the same article about reducing the size on LVM... I guess
I'm just unclear about what I would lose if I lost an LVM'd drive
(stemming from the fact i dont know how LVM data is stored.) Are bits
of one file stored across multiple drives, or would the loss of a
drive result in the loss
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 01:41:28PM +0900, David Bennett wrote:
I have seen the same article about reducing the size on LVM... I guess
I'm just unclear about what I would lose if I lost an LVM'd drive
(stemming from the fact i dont know how LVM data is stored.) Are bits
of one file stored
49 matches
Mail list logo
