On 08.03.2005 14:13, Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tobias Hofmann wrote:
[...]
I had found postings on the net claiming that doing so without
unmounting the fs on the raid, this would lead to bad things happening -
but your report seems to prove them wrong...
I've been using somethi
Greetings All,
I have been lurking for a while I recently put together a raid 5 system
(Asus K8NE SIL 3114/2.6.8.1 kernel) with 4 300GB SATA Seagate drives (a lot
smaller than the bulk of what seems to be on this list!). Currently this is
used for video and mp3 storage, being Reiser on LVM2
Mike Hardy wrote:
You're very correct about needing to grow the FS after growing the
device though. Most FS's have tools for that, or there's LVM...
-Mike
I've tested with LVM2 an found, that resizing is not supported at the
moment (newest kernel with FC3).
LVM can only grow by adding PVs to the
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> I have been lurking for a while I recently put together a raid 5
> system (Asus K8NE SIL 3114/2.6.8.1 kernel) with 4 300GB SATA Seagate
> drives (a lot smaller than the bulk of what seems to be on this list!).
Size isn't importa
hi peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been lurking for a while I recently put together a raid 5
system (Asus K8NE SIL 3114/2.6.8.1 kernel) with 4 300GB SATA Seagate
drives (a lot smaller than the bulk of what seems to be on this
list!). Currently this is used for video and mp3 storage, being
Interestingly enough, having just typed up that last post, it's gotten me
thinking...
I've just taken delivery of a lot of old PC bits & disks. Mostly 18Gb SCSI
drives. So I've built up 2 boxes with 8 disks in each. Only old Xeon 500
processors, but all good stuff in its day.
Now I'm thinking th
Gordon Henderson wrote:
And do check your disks regularly, although I don't think current version
of smartmontools fully supports sata under the scsi subsystem yet...
Actually, if you are using a UP machine, the libata-dev tree has patches that make this work. I
believe there may be races on SMP m
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Brad Campbell wrote:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>
> > And do check your disks regularly, although I don't think current version
> > of smartmontools fully supports sata under the scsi subsystem yet...
> >
>
> Actually, if you are using a UP machine, the libata-dev tree has patch
Hi,
I try to create a Raid 1 device from two partitions on a Itanium, but i
can't get it to auto-assembly the raid when rebooting. Since it uses the
GPT partition-scheme i have to use parted. I set the raid-flag on the
partitions with "set 1 raid on" with no luck. I've also tried the
"md=0,/dev/sdb
Good point about maxing out the pci bus... - I already use the nForce for
mirrored boot drives, so that's not an option. The IDE controllers are empty at
the moment (save for a DVD drive); I will give this a thought.
Thanks for the feedback,
-P
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
I have another question regarding how softraid handles simple system
crashes (no disk crash) for Raid Level 4-6.
Let's say that in a system with 5 disks we write one block, and the
writes for disks 1-3 go through but those for disks 4-5 do not. When
the computer restarts and the softraid dev
Hi Neil,
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 21:17, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday March 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The first two are trivial and should apply equally to 2.6.11
> > >
> > > The second two fix bugs that were introduced by the recent
> > > b
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday March 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Have you remodelled the md/raid1 make_request() fn?
>
> Somewhat. Write requests are queued, and raid1d submits them when
> it is happy that all bitmap updates have been done.
OK - so a slight modification o
This patch removes my problem. I hope it doesn't have influence on the
stability of
the system.
It is simple: The Update routine skips normaly only "faulty" disks. Now it
skips all disk
that are not part of the working array ( raid_disk == -1 )
I made some testing, but surely not all, so :
DON'
Hi Peter,
After applying this patch, have you tried stop and restart the MD
array? I believe the spares will be kicked out in analyze_sbs()
function (see the second ITERATE_RDEV)
--
Regards,
Mike T.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:53, Peter Evertz wrote:
> This patch removes my problem. I hope it doe
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Jimmy Hedman wrote:
Is there any way i can make this work? Could it be doable with mdadm in
a initrd?
mdassembled was devise for this purpose.
create an /etc/mdadm.conf with
echo "DEVICE partitions" >> /etc/mdadm.conf
/sbin/mdadm -D -b /dev/md0 | grep '^ARR
Mike Tran writes:
Hi Peter,
After applying this patch, have you tried stop and restart the MD
array? I believe the spares will be kicked out in analyze_sbs()
function (see the second ITERATE_RDEV)
mdadm ( v1.6.0 - 4 June 2004 )
shows the arrays complete including spare.
/proc/mdstat is ok
I
I tried the patch and immediately found problems.
On creation of raid1 array, only the spare has md superblock, the raid
disks has no superblock. For instance:
mdadm -C /dev/md0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdd2 -x 1 /dev/hdd3
[wait for resync to finish if you want to...]
mdadm --stop /dev/md0
mdadm
Mike Tran writes:
I tried the patch and immediately found problems.
On creation of raid1 array, only the spare has md superblock, the raid
disks has no superblock. For instance:
mdadm -C /dev/md0 -l 1 -n 2 /dev/hdd1 /dev/hdd2 -x 1 /dev/hdd3
[wait for resync to finish if you want to...]
mdadm -
Hi,
I have an installer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/terraformix/) that
creates Raid 1 arrays, previously the arrays were created with mkraid
using the --dangerous-no-resync option. I am now required to build the
arrays with mdadm and have the following questions ;
1) Is there an equivalent o
Can a spare be added to an existing raid 5 array?
I do not see any way to do it.
John
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thursday March 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an installer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/terraformix/) that
> creates Raid 1 arrays, previously the arrays were created with mkraid
> using the --dangerous-no-resync option. I am now required to build the
> arrays with mdadm and
On 10 Mar 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an installer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/terraformix/) that
> creates Raid 1 arrays, previously the arrays were created with mkraid
> using the --dangerous-no-resync option. I am now required to build the
> arrays with mdadm and have th
Neil,
here are a couple of patches -- this one for the kernel, the next for
mdadm. They fix a few issues that I found while testing the new bitmap
intent logging code.
Briefly, the issues were:
kernel:
added call to bitmap_daemon_work() from raid1d so that the bitmap would
actually get cleared
Here's the mdadm patch...
Paul Clements wrote:
Neil,
here are a couple of patches -- this one for the kernel, the next for
mdadm. They fix a few issues that I found while testing the new bitmap
intent logging code.
Briefly, the issues were:
kernel:
added call to bitmap_daemon_work() from raid1d
25 matches
Mail list logo
