On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
Among this thread, and the several others bugs on this topic (various
aspects of booting degraded RAID), it seems that there are a number of
different (perhaps even conflicting) expectations on this
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:22:18PM -0600, Sam Howard wrote:
Thanks for the follow up ... I suspected that you had just typeo'd
your example scenario, but wanted to clarify it for me and everyone
else following along.
Sure. Thanks for catching it and pointing it out.
I hear you. All my
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
Among this thread, and the several others bugs on this topic (various
aspects of booting degraded RAID), it seems that there are a number of
different (perhaps even conflicting) expectations on this topic.
Could you elaborate? I've seen mention of various enhancements
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the production
Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID implementation?
Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
RAID, that
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:10AM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
production Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
implementation?
Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
RAID, that doesn't
Soren Hansen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:10AM -0400, Brian McKee wrote:
But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
production Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
implementation?
Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:20:45AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
But in the meantime ... this is Intrepid. What do I do about the
production Hardy that I is now known to ship with a broken RAID
implementation?
Just because it doesn't boot without intervention from a degraded
RAID, that doesn't
Rants aside...there are definitely some use cases that currently aren't
possible. I think we can all agree on that.
But I don't think that Michael is alone here. I know that this particular
issue has prevented us from deploying Ubuntu on our servers. I would
imagine that this issue is a show
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:36PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
But I don't think that Michael is alone here. I know that this particular
issue has prevented us from deploying Ubuntu on our servers. I would
imagine that this issue is a show stopper for other potential customers who
would
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:49AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
Just Work in this context means different things to different
people. To me, Just Work means that it above all doesn't corrupt
my data. To others, it might mean start the sucker no matter what,
so that I can get on with my life.
Soren Hansen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:49AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote:
Just Work in this context means different things to different
people. To me, Just Work means that it above all doesn't corrupt
my data. To others, it might mean start the sucker no matter what,
so that I can
Hi.
I really don't want to get into the middle of a flame war, but I don't
understand something you wrote and would like clarification so that I am not
assuming something incorrectly.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm quite happy that the server
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would my rant be any better received if I pointed out that this stuff has
worked just fine in versions of Red Hat and Windows dating back almost a
decade.
Absolutely in no way possible your rant would be better received.
Soren,
Thanks for the follow up ... I suspected that you had just typeo'd your
example scenario, but wanted to clarify it for me and everyone else
following along.
I hear you. All my servers are, in fact, remote. I'm however in the
happy situation that if a machine fails to come online after
Nick Barcet wrote:
Michael Hipp wrote:
I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical
disks
in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But
if
I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
RAID is
Michael-
I have been working on this very extensively recently. Is there any
chance you can check if the cd images for Intrepid do what you want
them to do?
I'm on vacation at the moment but had the opportunity to check my
email and saw your note.
If you check at least test the daily Intrepid
Michael Hipp wrote:
I just loaded a small LAN server with 8.04-1 server. It has two identical
disks
in a RAID1 configuration. Works great as long as both disks are online. But
if
I disconnect either disk it drops into a BusyBox shell and tells me that my
RAID is degraded and I can boot
17 matches
Mail list logo
