"Mag Gam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want RAID 5 but without mirroring. The data is important but not that
> important.
Ok, there are performance advantages and disadvantages to RAID5.
First, the advantage: reading is awesome. almost as good as a stripe.
the other advantage: writes in f
Well said.
Thankyou and everyone
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Damon L. Chesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 07:33 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> > Again, I appreciate the responses.
> >
> > Damon:
> >
> > I am dealing with HW RAID. I looked for the "geometry" for my
> > contr
On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 07:33 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> Again, I appreciate the responses.
>
> Damon:
>
> I am dealing with HW RAID. I looked for the "geometry" for my
> controller, but could not find it.
>
> http://h2.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/DocumentIndex.jsp?contentType=SupportMan
Again, I appreciate the responses.
Damon:
I am dealing with HW RAID. I looked for the "geometry" for my controller,
but could not find it.
http://h2.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/DocumentIndex.jsp?contentType=SupportManual&lang=en&cc=us&docIndexId=64179&taskId=101&prodTypeId=329290&prod
On Sat June 7 2008 17:04:02 Mag Gam wrote:
> Does this page,
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2006-October/msg00014.html, hold
> any validity? The poster makes a good argument, but by seeing Damon's
> response it makes no sense to go thru the trouble. I would be willing to
> try this if I
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 20:04 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> Thanks thats the exact same question I have.
>
> Does this page,
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2006-October/msg00014.html,
> hold any validity? The poster makes a good argument, but by seeing
> Damon's response it makes no sense to g
Thanks thats the exact same question I have.
Does this page,
http://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2006-October/msg00014.html, hold
any validity? The poster makes a good argument, but by seeing Damon's
response it makes no sense to go thru the trouble. I would be willing to try
this if I get so
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 11:15 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Striping is a GREAT idea IFF you want serious speed, but don't care
> about your data. If one of the disks goes flaky, *all* the data on
> the stripeset goes poof.
>
> So, *never* use striping on a production server!! Unless you hate
> the
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 17:05 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> Thanks for the responses all.
>
> I want RAID 5 but without mirroring. The data is important but not
> that important.
> I am planning to use LVM.
>
> If the controller creates a stripe size of 16k, do I need to do
> anything special with physi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/07/08 16:05, Mag Gam wrote:
> Thanks for the responses all.
>
> I want RAID 5 but without mirroring. The data is important but not that
> important.
Ummm, there is NO mirroring in RAID 5. Never has been.
> I am planning to use LVM.
>
> If th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/07/08 11:15, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>
> Otherwise, use RAID 0, 10, 0+1 or 5.
My mistake: not RAID 0, but RAID 1.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"Kittens give Morbo gas. In lighter news, the city of New New
York is doomed."
-B
Thanks for the responses all.
I want RAID 5 but without mirroring. The data is important but not that
important.
I am planning to use LVM.
If the controller creates a stripe size of 16k, do I need to do anything
special with physical extends (in pvcreate or vgcreate) ?
Do I need to do anything sp
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:52:24PM -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> With the RAID array I am planning to use RAID 5 so my data is still
> protected. My confusion is going with RAID striping (picking the right
> size). Also, Does the filesystem layout need to be specific when I do
> striping? If I am using 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The other reason why I hate gmail is that it, like Outlook,
naturally top-posts...
On 06/07/08 11:52, Mag Gam wrote:
> With the RAID array I am planning to use RAID 5 so my data is still
> protected. My confusion is going with RAID striping (picking
With the RAID array I am planning to use RAID 5 so my data is still
protected. My confusion is going with RAID striping (picking the right
size). Also, Does the filesystem layout need to be specific when I do
striping? If I am using 128k stripes, should I start my filesystem on 129k
and end with ma
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 11:15 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/07/08 07:27, Mag Gam wrote:
> >
> > I have a RAID controller with 256MB of on board cache and its connected
> > to 12 500GB SATA disks. I am planning to create 2 RAID groups (6 disks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/07/08 07:27, Mag Gam wrote:
>
> I have a RAID controller with 256MB of on board cache and its connected
> to 12 500GB SATA disks. I am planning to create 2 RAID groups (6 disks
> each), but I don't know what is the optimal stripe size should be.
On Sat June 7 2008 08:32:27 Mag Gam wrote:
> I haven't even approached the file system level yet. The application is a
> basic fileserver which will host our professor's mechanical engineering
> images. These images can be anywhere from 20MB to 300MB so I would consider
> them "normal files".
>
> I
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 11:32 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
> Damon,
>
> I haven't even approached the file system level yet. The application
> is a basic fileserver which will host our professor's mechanical
> engineering images. These images can be anywhere from 20MB to 300MB so
> I would consider them "n
Damon,
I haven't even approached the file system level yet. The application is a
basic fileserver which will host our professor's mechanical engineering
images. These images can be anywhere from 20MB to 300MB so I would consider
them "normal files".
I am hoping some hardware people can chime in a
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 08:27 -0400, Mag Gam wrote:
>
> I have a RAID controller with 256MB of on board cache and its
> connected to 12 500GB SATA disks. I am planning to create 2 RAID
> groups (6 disks each), but I don't know what is the optimal stripe
> size should be.
Are you going to use the R
I have a RAID controller with 256MB of on board cache and its connected to
12 500GB SATA disks. I am planning to create 2 RAID groups (6 disks each),
but I don't know what is the optimal stripe size should be.
Also, once I stripe on the RAID controller I am planning to use LVM. Is
striping a good
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:44:12PM -0700, Mike Hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi all,
I had recently tried to install Debian on a computer containing a 200
GB harddrive. However, during cfdisking of the Debian install process
cfdisk fails to see past approximately 130 GB o
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:44:12PM -0700, Mike Hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had recently tried to install Debian on a computer containing a 200
> GB harddrive. However, during cfdisking of the Debian install process
> cfdisk fails to see past approximately 130 GB of hard disk s
Hi,
* Mike Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030801 12:46]:
> Hi all,
>
> I had recently tried to install Debian on a computer containing a 200
> GB harddrive. However, during cfdisking of the Debian install process
> cfdisk fails to see past approximately 130 GB of hard disk space. I'm
> suspecting thi
Hi all,
I had recently tried to install Debian on a computer containing a 200 GB harddrive. However, during cfdisking of the Debian install process cfdisk fails to see past approximately 130 GB of hard disk space. I'm suspecting this is because it is an old version of cfdisk (later versions of cf
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 06:14:10PM -0700, nate wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout said:
> > [Please CC any replies. I'm subscribed to other debian lists, but not
> > this one]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to partition a 160GB disk on potato with kernel 2.4.17. Both
> > fdisk and cfdisk die with SIG
Martijn van Oosterhout said:
> [Please CC any replies. I'm subscribed to other debian lists, but not
> this one]
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to partition a 160GB disk on potato with kernel 2.4.17. Both
> fdisk and cfdisk die with SIGXFSZ. Even dd is getting killed after 4GB.
> Did potato really have no
[Please CC any replies. I'm subscribed to other debian lists, but not this
one]
Hi,
I'm trying to partition a 160GB disk on potato with kernel 2.4.17.
Both fdisk and cfdisk die with SIGXFSZ. Even dd is getting killed after 4GB.
Did potato really have no large file support? Why is it that I've ne
It's packaged for potato so it would be easy to make a slink deb.
http://www.debian.org/Packages/unstable/admin/ext2resize.html
Timshel Knoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is also packaging GNU Parted
which is at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/parted
> ext2resize by Lennert Buytenhek.
> http://freshmeat.net/appin
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 07:47:43AM -0800, aphro wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Dave Sherohman wrote:
>
> esper >Hadn't thought of that... Are there any reliable tools out there for
> esper >resizing e2fs partitions? (I already gave it all of the space that
> hadn't
> esper >been claimed by my ro
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Dave Sherohman wrote:
esper >Hadn't thought of that... Are there any reliable tools out there for
esper >resizing e2fs partitions? (I already gave it all of the space that
hadn't
esper >been claimed by my root and swap partitions...)
partition magic 4 and 5 .. v5 comes wit
On 14-Nov-1999, Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jean-Yves BARBIER said:
> > You could enlarge it a bit, and use it to make your images for CDz
>
> Hadn't thought of that... Are there any reliable tools out there for
> resizing e2fs partitions? (I already gave it all of the space that
Jean-Yves BARBIER said:
> You could enlarge it a bit, and use it to make your images for CDz
Hadn't thought of that... Are there any reliable tools out there for
resizing e2fs partitions? (I already gave it all of the space that hadn't
been claimed by my root and swap partitions...)
--
Geek Co
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 04:18:47PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> ..
> to the global (top) section of/etc/lilo.conf. Now the only problem is that
> I've got a 534 Mb partition that I can't decide where to mount, so it's just
> sitting there, still unused... (Any suggestions?)
You could enlar
On 14-Nov-1999, Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alisdair McDiarmid said:
> > The problem with this is that cdfisk still thinks the disk is 8GB:
> > there's no free space left at the end of the drive.
> >
> > Why's that?
>
> I had the same problem a while ago running a Potato system wi
Alisdair McDiarmid said:
> The problem with this is that cdfisk still thinks the disk is 8GB:
> there's no free space left at the end of the drive.
>
> Why's that?
I had the same problem a while ago running a Potato system with a homemade
2.2.9 kernel and a 9 Gb drive. Windows could see the enti
easiest way is to copy the data over, delete the partition and re make
it. or you can grab powerquest partition magic 4 or above.
nate
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Alisdair McDiarmid wrote:
alisda >I recently installed slink on a machine with a 15.2GB IBM harddisk
alisda >and it only recognised about 8G
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Alisdair McDiarmid wrote:
alisda >> Ok - a kernel 2.0 limitation
alisda >
alisda >Oh, right.
8GB barrier is a not a limitation in at least 2.0.36 ..doubt it is in
earlier ones too, i believe it is a LILO issue, it is not detecting the
parameters of the drive correctly. Upgrad
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> The problem with this is that cdfisk still thinks the disk is 8GB:
>
> there's no free space left at the end of the drive.
>
> Why's that?
That's a good question. The best thing I can come up with is that the
kernel, when it read the
>I recently installed slink on a machine with a 15.2GB
>IBM harddisk
>and it only recognised about 8GB of the drive.
>I went ahead and partitioned the drive normally,
>leaving the last
>4GB for /home. Now I've upgraded to 2.2.x and potato
>and I want to
>use the whole of the disk by extending the
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:24:54PM -0600, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
>
> > I recently installed slink on a machine with a 15.2GB IBM harddisk
> > and it only recognised about 8GB of the drive.
>
> Ok - a kernel 2.0 limitation
Oh, right.
> >
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> I recently installed slink on a machine with a 15.2GB IBM harddisk
> and it only recognised about 8GB of the drive.
Ok - a kernel 2.0 limitation
>
> I went ahead and partitioned the drive normally, leaving the last
> 4GB for /home. No
I recently installed slink on a machine with a 15.2GB IBM harddisk
and it only recognised about 8GB of the drive.
I went ahead and partitioned the drive normally, leaving the last
4GB for /home. Now I've upgraded to 2.2.x and potato and I want to
use the whole of the disk by extending the /home pa
44 matches
Mail list logo
