> well? are you guys tapped out on this or should I be looking elsewhere?
> The *was* the recommended place to seek out help.
> still waiting
netiquette hint: if you don't get a reply, you need to first verify
that you provided all possible diagnostic info in a clear, succinct message,
and
On Friday 31 March 2006 22:27, Mike Hardy wrote:
> Well, honestly I'm not really sure. I've never done this as I only use
> the redundant raid levels, and when they're gone, things are a complete
> hash and there's no hope. In fact, with raid-0 (striping, right? not
> linear/append?) I believe you
Well, honestly I'm not really sure. I've never done this as I only use
the redundant raid levels, and when they're gone, things are a complete
hash and there's no hope. In fact, with raid-0 (striping, right? not
linear/append?) I believe you are in the same boat. Each large file will
have half its
mike.
given the problem, I have a request.
On Friday 31 March 2006 15:55, Mike Hardy wrote:
>
> I can't imagine how to coax a filesystem to work when it's missing half
> it's contents, but maybe a combination of forcing a start on the raid
> and read-only FS mounts could make it hobble along.
w
ok,
seems I made a mistake in how this silly mail client is configured.
so, in that, I do apologize for having this show up on the list (doh!)
this was meant to be private and should have remained that way.
On Friday 31 March 2006 19:01, Technomage wrote:
> Jeff,
> I would if I could. but I liv
mike,
yeah coaxing the FS into trying to recover seems to be the sticky bit. :(
I have tried all that I know, which is not much considering that this is not
my specialty (I am a unix security admin ).
we still have the original drives and we have a drive imaging device arriving
(should have
Jeff,
I would if I could. but I live on a rather limited income here . :(
also, my chances for employment (other than self-contracted services) in
phoenix are slim and none (being disabled in a market with a very soft tech
sector can lead to that).
now, I don't mean to be abrasive, but, so far,
PM
} To: Guy
} Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
} Subject: addendum: was Re: recovering data on a failed raid-0 installation
}
} ok, guy and others.
}
} this is a followup to the case I am currently trying (still) to solve.
}
} synopsis:
} the general consensus is that raid0 writes in a striping f
ok, guy and others.
this is a followup to the case I am currently trying (still) to solve.
synopsis:
the general consensus is that raid0 writes in a striping fashion.
However, the test case I have here doesn't appear to operate in the above
described manner. what was observed was this: on /dev/
On Tuesday March 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ok,
> here's the situation in a nutshell.
>
> one of the 2 HD's in a linux raid-0 installation has failed.
>
> Fortunately, or otherwise, it was NOT the primary HD.
What do you mean by "primary HD". All drives in a raid-0 are equal.
>
> problem
RAID0 uses all disks evenly (all 2 in your case). I dont see how you can
recover from a drive failure with a RAID0. Never use RAID0 unless you are
willing to lose all the data!
Are you sure the second disk is dead? Have you done a read test on the
disk? dd works well for read testing. Try th
11 matches
Mail list logo
