Lee Revell wrote:
> On 4/4/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I won't say that's voodoo, but if I ever did it I'd wipe down my
>> keyboard with holy water afterward. ;-)
>>
>> Well, I did save the message in my tricks file, but it sounds like a
>> last ditch effort after something get
On 4/4/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I won't say that's voodoo, but if I ever did it I'd wipe down my
keyboard with holy water afterward. ;-)
Well, I did save the message in my tricks file, but it sounds like a
last ditch effort after something get very wrong.
Would it reallty b
Tejun Heo wrote:
[resending. my mail service was down for more than a week and this
message didn't get delivered.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, what's annoying is that I can't figure out how to bring the
drive back on line without resetting the box. It's in a hot-swap
enclosure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Anyway, what's annoying is that I can't figure out how to bring the
>>> drive back on line without resetting the box. It's in a hot-swap enclosure,
>>> but power cycling the drive doesn't seem to help. I thought libata hotplug
>>> was workin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Anyway, what's annoying is that I can't figure out how to bring the
>> drive back on line without resetting the box. It's in a hot-swap enclosure,
>> but power cycling the drive doesn't seem to help. I thought libata hotplug
>> was working? (SiI3132 card, using the si
[resending. my mail service was down for more than a week and this
message didn't get delivered.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anyway, what's annoying is that I can't figure out how to bring the
> > drive back on line without resetting the box. It's in a hot-swap
enclosure,
> > but power cycling
As an additional data point, here's a libata problem I'm having trying to
rebuild the array.
I have six identical 400 GB drives (ST3400832AS), and one is giving
me hassles. I've run SMART short and long diagnostics, badblocks, and
Seagate's "seatools" diagnostic software, and none of these find p
On Thursday March 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not a cfq failure, but I have been able to reproduce a different oops
> at array stop time while i/o's were pending. I have not dug into it
> enough to suggest a patch, but I wonder if it is somehow related to
> the cfq failure since it involves
On 3/22/07, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/22/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday March 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > 3 (I think) seperate instances of this, each involving raid5. Is your
> > > > array degr
On 3/22/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday March 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 3 (I think) seperate instances of this, each involving raid5. Is your
> > > array degraded or fully operational?
> >
> > Ding! A drive fell out th
On Thursday March 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 3 (I think) seperate instances of this, each involving raid5. Is your
> > > array degraded or fully operational?
> >
> > Ding! A drive fell out the other day, which is why the problems only
> > app
On Thu, Mar 22 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 3 (I think) seperate instances of this, each involving raid5. Is your
> > array degraded or fully operational?
>
> Ding! A drive fell out the other day, which is why the problems only
> appeared recently.
>
> md5 : active raid5 sdf4[5] sdd4[3] sdc
> 3 (I think) seperate instances of this, each involving raid5. Is your
> array degraded or fully operational?
Ding! A drive fell out the other day, which is why the problems only
appeared recently.
md5 : active raid5 sdf4[5] sdd4[3] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] sda4[0]
1719155200 blocks level 5, 64k ch
On Thu, Mar 22 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a uniprocessor AMD64 system running software RAID-5 and RAID-10
> over multiple PCIe SiI3132 SATA controllers. The hardware has been very
> stable for a long time, but has been acting up of late since I upgraded
> to 2.6.20.3. ECC memory sho
> This is a uniprocessor AMD64 system running software RAID-5 and RAID-10
> over multiple PCIe SiI3132 SATA controllers. The hardware has been very
> stable for a long time, but has been acting up of late since I upgraded
> to 2.6.20.3. ECC memory should preclude the possibility of bit-flip
> err
This is a uniprocessor AMD64 system running software RAID-5 and RAID-10
over multiple PCIe SiI3132 SATA controllers. The hardware has been very
stable for a long time, but has been acting up of late since I upgraded
to 2.6.20.3. ECC memory should preclude the possibility of bit-flip
errors.
Kern
16 matches
Mail list logo
