Re: [RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread Dave Young
On 7/20/07, Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 7/20/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by > cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but /dev/null ? withdraw my wrong comment. > a

Re: [RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:13:03AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by > cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but > at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first > partion

Re: [RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread Dave Young
On 7/20/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:13:03AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by > cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but > at least the first 100MB are gon

Re: [RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread Jeffrey V. Merkey
Al Boldi wrote: As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first partion, but there are many partitions after that, whic

Re: [RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread James Lamanna
On 7/19/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first partion, but there are man

Re: [RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread Dave Young
On 7/20/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but /dev/null ? at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first partion, but

[RFH] Partion table recovery

2007-07-19 Thread Al Boldi
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the first partion, but there are many partitions after that, which I hope should e

Re: pata_via with software raid1: "attempt to access beyond end of device"

2007-07-19 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday July 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:14:31 +1000 > Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What does > > od -D -j 65536 -N 4 /dev/md1 > > show. This is the size the reiserfs thinks it is using. Multiply by > > 4 and you should get 77642048 or maybe a l

Re: pata_via with software raid1: "attempt to access beyond end of device"

2007-07-19 Thread Dâniel Fraga
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:14:31 +1000 Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What does > od -D -j 65536 -N 4 /dev/md1 > show. This is the size the reiserfs thinks it is using. Multiply by > 4 and you should get 77642048 or maybe a little less. If you get > more, then reiserfs think the devi

Re: pata_via with software raid1: "attempt to access beyond end of device"

2007-07-19 Thread Neil Brown
On Thursday July 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:54:50 +1000 > Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The resierfs filesystem is trying to access beyond the end of the > > raid1 array. Maybe some indexing information in the array is > > corrupted. > > Did you recreate t

[RFT] 2.6.22.1-iop1 for improved sequential write performance (stripe-queue)

2007-07-19 Thread Dan Williams
Per Bill Davidsen's request I have made available a 2.6.22.1 based kernel with the current raid5 performance changes I have been working on: 1/ Offload engine acceleration (recently merged for the 2.6.23 development cycle) 2/ Stripe-queue, an evolutionary change to the raid5 queuing model (take4)

Re: pata_via with software raid1: "attempt to access beyond end of device"

2007-07-19 Thread Dâniel Fraga
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:54:50 +1000 Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The resierfs filesystem is trying to access beyond the end of the > raid1 array. Maybe some indexing information in the array is > corrupted. > Did you recreate the array (mdadm --create) after changing to the new > driver

Re: 2.6.19-rc5: Can't get built-in raid support, modular works correctly

2007-07-19 Thread J. Hart
Justin Piszcz wrote: Any reason you are using 2.6.19-rc5? Why not use 2.6.22.(1)? I just wanted to try to understand the reason for the problem before changing to a new kernel. I had not heard that any such problem had been encountered, though I could have missed the news. Have you heard

Re: Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-19 Thread Rui Santos
Lars Schimmer wrote: > Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed > >> Server. Here are the details: > >> > >> Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A > >> Board: Asus DSBV-D ( > >> > http://uk.a

Re: Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-19 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Lars Schimmer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Justin Piszcz wrote: On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote: Hi, I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed Server. Here are the details: Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A Board:

Re: 2.6.19-rc5: Can't get built-in raid support, modular works correctly

2007-07-19 Thread Justin Piszcz
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, J. Hart wrote: When I configure a 2.6.19-rc5 linux kernel for "built-in" raid support, I do not get the expected /proc/mdstat entry. I set the following kernel parameters for this : CONFIG_MD=Y BLK_DEV_MD=y MD_RAID0=y When I configure the kernel for modular raid supp

2.6.19-rc5: Can't get built-in raid support, modular works correctly

2007-07-19 Thread J. Hart
When I configure a 2.6.19-rc5 linux kernel for "built-in" raid support, I do not get the expected /proc/mdstat entry. I set the following kernel parameters for this : CONFIG_MD=Y BLK_DEV_MD=y MD_RAID0=y When I configure the kernel for modular raid support in otherwise identical fashion, I d

Re: Slow Soft-RAID 5 performance

2007-07-19 Thread Lars Schimmer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rui Santos wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm getting a strange slow performance behavior on a recently installed >> Server. Here are the details: >> >> Server: Asus AS-TS500-E4A >> Board: Asus DSBV-D ( >> http

Re: asynchronous write

2007-07-19 Thread Neil Brown
On Wednesday July 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Did the asynchronous write stuff (as it was in fr1) ever get into kernel > software raid? Hmmm... what was 'fr1' again??.. asks google. http://www.it.uc3m.es/ptb/fr1/ Yes, that sound like the 'bitmap' support currently in md. The bitmap is store

Re: Possible data corruption sata_sil24?

2007-07-19 Thread Tejun Heo
David Shaw wrote: >> I'm not sure whether this is problem of sata_sil24 or dm layer. Cc'ing >> linux-raid for help. How much memory do you have? One big difference >> between ata_piix and sata_sil24 is that sil24 can handle 64bit DMA. >> Maybe dma mapping or something interacts weirdly with dm t