Mike Hardy wrote:
Gerd Knops wrote:
Hello all,
One of the dreaded Maxtor SATA drives in my RAID5 failed, after just 3
months of light use. Anyhow I neither have the disk capacity nor the
money to buy it to make a backup. To make sure I do it correctly,
could you folks please double-check my int
W liście z pon, 17-01-2005, godz. 16:51, Hans Kristian Rosbach pisze:
[...]
> Actually I have managed to get about 30-40% higher throughput with just
> a little hacking on the code that selects what disk to use.
>
> Problem is
> -It selects the disk that is closest to the wanted sector by remem
Paul Clements wrote:
Hi,
Markus Gehring wrote:
I have a reproducable problem with corrupted data read from a
RAID1-array.
Setup:
HW:
2 S-ATA-Disks (160GB each) -> /dev/md4 RAID1
Promise S150 TX4 - Controller
AMD Sempron 2200+
SW:
Fedora Core 3
Kernel 2.6.10 unpatched
Samba (for read
On 17-Jan-05, at 1:14 PM, Paul Clements wrote:
Hi,
Markus Gehring wrote:
I have a reproducable problem with corrupted data read from a
RAID1-array.
Setup:
HW:
2 S-ATA-Disks (160GB each) -> /dev/md4 RAID1
Promise S150 TX4 - Controller
AMD Sempron 2200+
SW:
Fedora Core 3
Kernel 2.6.10 un
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Markus Gehring wrote:
| Hi Folks!
|
| I have a reproducable problem with corrupted data read from a RAID1-array.
|
| Everything works fine with only one drive in the array. If the second is
| synced up read accesses return corrupted data.
|
| Interestin
Hi,
Markus Gehring wrote:
I have a reproducable problem with corrupted data read from a RAID1-array.
Setup:
HW:
2 S-ATA-Disks (160GB each) -> /dev/md4 RAID1
Promise S150 TX4 - Controller
AMD Sempron 2200+
SW:
Fedora Core 3
Kernel 2.6.10 unpatched
Samba (for read/write-accesses)
SW-R
Hi Folks!
I have a reproducable problem with corrupted data read from a RAID1-array.
Setup:
HW:
2 S-ATA-Disks (160GB each) -> /dev/md4 RAID1
Promise S150 TX4 - Controller
AMD Sempron 2200+
SW:
Fedora Core 3
Kernel 2.6.10 unpatched
Samba (for read/write-accesses)
SW-Raid
Everything w
On Monday 17 January 2005 16:51, Andy Smith wrote:
>
> As an aside, when I try this, how come I get this:
>
> $ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/md0
>
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.03 seconds = 50.19 MB/sec
> HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(null) (wait for flush complete) failed: In
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 04:24:47PM +, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> FWIW I get these results with RAID-0
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ sudo hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/md0
>
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 170 MB in 3.00 seconds = 56.64 MB/sec
>
> /dev/sdb:
> Timing buffered disk r
Hans Kristian Rosbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -It selects the disk that is closest to the wanted sector by remembering
> what sector was last requested and what disk was used for it.
> -For sequential reads (sucha as hdparm) it will override and use the
> same disk anyways. (sector = lastsec
On Monday 17 January 2005 15:39, Gordon Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Janusz Zamecki wrote:
>
> > I've expected much better /dev/md6 performance (at least 100MB/s).
>
> I wouldn't - use RAID-0 if you want more performance.
>
FWIW I get these results with RAID-0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ sud
> As I understand it, it reads "chunksize" blocks from one drive, then
> switches to the other drive, then back again.
>
> Try a bigger read - eg:
>
> time dd if=/dev/md6 of=/dev/null bs=128K count=8192
>
> but I don't think there are any real gains to be made with RAID-1 - your
> results more
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Janusz Zamecki wrote:
> Hello!
>
> After days of googling I've gave up and decided to ask for help.
>
> The story is very simple: I have /dev/md6 raid1 array made of hdg and
> hde disks. The resulting array is as fast as 1 disk only.
Why would you expect it to be any faster?
Hello!
After days of googling I've gave up and decided to ask for help.
The story is very simple: I have /dev/md6 raid1 array made of hdg and
hde disks. The resulting array is as fast as 1 disk only.
Please check this out:
hdparm -t /dev/hdg /dev/hde /dev/md6
/dev/hdg:
Timing buffered disk reads
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> Thank you to Gordon, Maarten and Guy for your helpful responses. I learned
> much from each of your comments.
>
> Gordon: I get the same output on 2.6.8 sarge kernel for hpt366 driver. I
> notice that running hdparm /dev/hde that the IO_support is set a
> "Gordon" == Gordon Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gordon> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Neil Brown wrote:
>> There is no current support for raid6 in any 2.4 kernel and I
>> am not aware of anyone planning such support. Assume it is 2.6
>> only.
Gordon> How "real-life" te
16 matches
Mail list logo
