On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday, October 01, 2011 12:56:46 AM Cliff Pratt wrote:
>> prompt> tune2fs /dev/sdb1 -U c491d94e-7004-4b08-9993-4c9a7a25b6b1
>
> As the saying goes, try typing that fast ten times and see how many
> times the UUID ends up being fat-figne
On Saturday, October 01, 2011 12:56:46 AM Cliff Pratt wrote:
> prompt> tune2fs /dev/sdb1 -U c491d94e-7004-4b08-9993-4c9a7a25b6b1
As the saying goes, try typing that fast ten times and see how many times
the UUID ends up being fat-fignered.
Unless the UUID contains spellable words that use on
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> UUID is, IMHO at least, the worst of all worlds due to the length
> and the user-unfriendliness of it all (it's been the Ubuntu default
> for a while, though!). It is guaranteed unique (until you use
> complete clones), but is the most difficu
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> But 'breakage' and 'bugginess' are not synonyms; something can be broken for
> a corner case but not be a bug in the general sense. Is the current
> filesystem mounting standard broken? In certain use cases most certainly.
> Is the curr
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/30/11 12:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Um, we just went from the 1TB drives to 3TB drives, so I only need four.
>>
> yes, but 12 2.5" 1TB drives take the same amount of space (1U), and are
> capable of higher IO throughput due to being more spindles.
You missed wha
On 09/30/11 12:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Um, we just went from the 1TB drives to 3TB drives, so I only need four.
>
yes, but 12 2.5" 1TB drives take the same amount of space (1U), and are
capable of higher IO throughput due to being more spindles.
--
john r pierce
On Friday, September 30, 2011 03:36:50 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Below is the issue I am talking about. The system ignores the sda/sdb
> etc labeling to use UUID and things like hd0, hd1...
> Yet mdstat shows you the drives in the useless labeling way...sda sdab
...
Useless? Those names are what th
Well, first thing is I got lucky and not bought all the same drives. If
I had all the same I would never have known I put my OS on the two
drives added with the new sata card, something I DID NOT want to do.
If they were all 1 tb drives, it would have been a disaster to me.
Luckily I set up P0-
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM, wrote:
>>
>> And no, I do not toss my backups at work in my shirt:
>
> Figuratively speaking, of course - the 2.5" drives are just easier for
> any use where the capacity makes sense.
>
Um, we just went from the 1TB drives to 3TB drives, so I
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM, wrote:
>
> And no, I do not toss my backups at work in my shirt:
Figuratively speaking, of course - the 2.5" drives are just easier for
any use where the capacity makes sense.
> the offline backups,
> fully encrypted disks, go in the fire safe in the locked ser
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Most of our servers have all drives in hot swap bays (and the older ones
>> that don't are being surplussed as fast as we can)... *ALL* of which
>> have sleds they have to fit in. The only drives I swap on a regular
>> basis are
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, wrote:
>
> Most of our servers have all drives in hot swap bays (and the older ones
> that don't are being surplussed as fast as we can)... *ALL* of which have
> sleds they have to fit in. The only drives I swap on a regular basis are
> our offline backups (of th
Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On 9/30/2011 8:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu
>> wrote:
>>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>>> after a failure?
>> Because I can. Why wouldn't you? Mine are nearly all in swappable
>> c
On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:26:28 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> For example when mounting by label was
> first implemented, having a duplicate label (very likely if you move
> disks around at all since the installer always used the same l
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>
>>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>>> after a failure?
>>
>> Because I can. Why wouldn't you? Mine are nearly all in swappable
>> carriers and it is a lot faster to move them than to ship data any
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> While finding the corner cases seems to be your specialty, Les, recognize
> that there will always be a corner case not covered by any filesystem
> labeling/naming scheme, no matter what scheme is used.
>
I've found that it is a good idea
On 9/30/2011 8:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>> after a failure?
> Because I can. Why wouldn't you? Mine are nearly all in swappable
> carriers and it is a lot faster
On Friday, September 30, 2011 11:41:02 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Because I can. Why wouldn't you?
...
> That doesn't any more sense than having to label all your shipping
> containers descriptively before you know what you are going to put in
> them. And besides, most of the labels are applied
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu
> wrote:
>>
>>> What happens when you move the disks around among machines? Or don't
>>> you ever do that after they contain data?
>
>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>> after a failure?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
>
>> What happens when you move the disks around among machines? Or don't
>> you ever do that after they contain data?
> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
> after a failure?
Because I can. Why wouldn't
Hi Les,
On 29/09/11 22:25, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, wrote:
>> When I build, our PXEboot ks partitions and labels the partitions. When I
>> add or replace, I make the partition, the fs, and e2label them. I've
>> gotten to really appreciate labeling. I hate the UUIDs -
On 29/09/11 22:19, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> When I build, our PXEboot ks partitions and labels the partitions. When I
> add or replace, I make the partition, the fs, and e2label them. I've
> gotten to really appreciate labeling. I hate the UUIDs - they're
> ludicrously too long, and bear no relati
- Original Message -
> From: "Les Mikesell"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:16:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] add on sata card relabeling drives, installation
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David C. Miller
&
--
Lamar Owen wrote
Drive model number plus serial number. Really the only way;
when putting systems together you just need to note the drive model and
serial number(s)
--
That seems like an important thing.
After some research I have decided the only two options are
1) to leave as is and
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, wrote:
>>
This type of issue is why relying on /dev/sdX is bad. Mounting based
on uuid or label when available is best. Unfortunately, there are
controller cards that present all disks as the same uuid. It makes
using mdad
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 05:16:16 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> So how do you propose getting a uuid or label on a disk in the first
> place if you can't identify which is which physically? And how do you
> know which to move when you want the content in some other box?
Drive model number plus
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, wrote:
>
>>> This type of issue is why relying on /dev/sdX is bad. Mounting based on
>>> uuid or label when available is best. Unfortunately, there are
>>> controller cards that present all disks as the same uuid. It makes using
>>> mdadm that can only see /dev/sd
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David C. Miller
> wrote:
>>
>> This type of issue is why relying on /dev/sdX is bad. Mounting based on
>> uuid or label when available is best. Unfortunately, there are
>> controller cards that present all disks as the same uuid. It makes usin
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David C. Miller
wrote:
>
> This type of issue is why relying on /dev/sdX is bad. Mounting based on uuid
> or label when available is best. Unfortunately, there are controller cards
> that present all disks as the same uuid. It makes using mdadm that can only
> s
- Original Message -
> From: "Lamar Owen"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:36:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] add on sata card relabeling drives, installation
>
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:47:15 PM Bob Ho
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:47:15 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
> I do not want my raid 1 mirror OS to be on sdc, sdd, and sdeit just
> looks weird.
It's related to PCI enumeration order, and may not be changeable. You could
try the add-on card in another slot.
However, if you think that's
From: Bob Hoffman
> When installing with anaconda, the 2 drives located on the add-on sata
> card are being listed as sda and sdb instead of going
> to the back of the line.
Check in the bios if it proposes a ctrl detection order.
JD
___
CentOS maili
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 08:05:53PM -0400, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> It is like installing windows on your f drive and having c and d as
> storage drives...just rubs ya wrong.
Fortunately, linux is not so braindead that the actual drive assignments
cause any problems. Just don't worry about it. Th
Les Mikesell wrote
If you are doing raid, once the partitions are set up you will only
see /dev/md? device names except in madam commands or when looking at
/proc/mdstat. And you can move the drives around later so the ac
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I think you misunderstand. It is just the lettering. The extra sata card
> is not going to be booted from. The bios only sets the
> boot order, not which drive letter linux is going to assign it.
> it is the drive letters that just a
Craig,
I think you misunderstand. It is just the lettering. The extra sata card
is not going to be booted from. The bios only sets the
boot order, not which drive letter linux is going to assign it.
it is the drive letters that just annoy me and was hoping for an easy
changeable fix. I was surpr
On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I have a new server and am playing with the installation. (centos 6). My
> onboard sata card has 6 drives attached to it,
> yet the server has 8 bays. I bought a sata controller card (adaptec) and
> added it to the mix, adding two mo
37 matches
Mail list logo
