On 2/2/06, Peter Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have yet to have a windows machine die because of a disk failure
> when mirrored.
ok, I'll take the bait. you are documenting simply, that you had luck
in the past, perhaps also due to some good hardware (although
I do not trust those $25 "har
Nick Holland wrote:
> Welcome to the REALITY of RAID.
>
> If you rely on RAID to always work, and never go down, you Just Don't
> Understand.
>
> ...
>
> If hardware breaks, don't expect everything else to keep working.
Hope,
> sure. Expect? No. I don't care if you are talking about ccd,
> RAI
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Nick Holland wrote:
SNIP
> Welcome to the REALITY of RAID.
>
> If you rely on RAID to always work, and never go down, you Just Don't
> Understand.
SNIP
> Doesn't matter about drive type, doesn't really matter about device
> drivers, there are PLENTY of things that CAN and WILL c
Greg Oster wrote:
> "Peter Fraser" writes:
>> I had a disk drive fail while running RAIDframe.
>> The system did not survive the failure. Even worse
>> there was data loss.
>
> Ow.
Welcome to the REALITY of RAID.
If you rely on RAID to always work, and never go down, you Just Don't
Understand.
Andy Hayward writes:
> On 2/1/06, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Peter Fraser" writes:
> > > and as a result all file writes to the failed
> > > drive queued up in memory,
> >
> > I've never seen that behaviour... I find it hard to believe that
> > you'd be able to queue up 2 days wort
On 2/1/06, Greg Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter Fraser" writes:
> > and as a result all file writes to the failed
> > drive queued up in memory,
>
> I've never seen that behaviour... I find it hard to believe that
> you'd be able to queue up 2 days worth of writes without a) any reads
>
On 2/1/06, Peter Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why was there a crash, I would of thought
> that the system should run after a disk failure.
> And even more to my surprise, about two days
> of my work disappeared.
>
> I believe, the disk drive died about 2 days before
> the crash. I also b
> You havn't said what types of disks. I've had IDE disks fail that
> take down the entire system. I've had IDE disks fail but the system
> remains up and happy. I've had SCSI disks fail that have made the
> SCSI cards *very* unhappy (and had the system die shortly after).
> None of these t
"Peter Fraser" writes:
> I had a disk drive fail while running RAIDframe.
> The system did not survive the failure. Even worse
> there was data loss.
Ow.
> The system was to be my new web server. The system
> had 1 Gig of memory. I was working, slowly, on
> configuring apache and web pages. Mo
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:02:22AM -0500, Peter Fraser wrote:
> I had a disk drive fail while running RAIDframe.
> The system did not survive the failure. Even worse
> there was data loss.
>
> The system was to be my new web server. The system
> had 1 Gig of memory. I was working, slowly, on
> co
Peter writes:
>
> I tried unsuccessfully using the same procedure to set up two disks (sd0
> and sd1) attached to a QLogic FibreChannel controller (isp driver). I
> probably don't have the correct terminology but upon startup the boot code
> could not be found (would not get beyond the point where
I had a disk drive fail while running RAIDframe.
The system did not survive the failure. Even worse
there was data loss.
The system was to be my new web server. The system
had 1 Gig of memory. I was working, slowly, on
configuring apache and web pages. Moving to
a chroot'ed environment was none t
> Side question:
> I tried unsuccessfully using the same procedure to set up two disks (sd0
> and sd1) attached to a QLogic FibreChannel controller (isp driver). I
> probably don't have the correct terminology but upon startup the boot code
> could not be found (would not get beyond the point wher
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kan_Olsson?= writes:
> On 1 feb 2006, at 08.38, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Peter wrote:
> >
> >> raid0: Device already configured!
> >> "ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed"
> >>
> >> Can anyone lend a hand in this important matter?
> >
>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:45:42AM -0500, Peter wrote:
> --- Ho?=kan Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 1 feb 2006, at 08.38, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Peter wrote:
> > >
> > >> raid0: Device already configured!
> > >> "ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIG
--- Ho?=kan Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 feb 2006, at 08.38, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Peter wrote:
> >
> >> raid0: Device already configured!
> >> "ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed"
> >>
> >> Can anyone lend a hand in this important matter?
On 1 feb 2006, at 08.38, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Peter wrote:
raid0: Device already configured!
"ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed"
Can anyone lend a hand in this important matter?
Let me guess (since you didn't post any configuration): you
enabled RAI
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Peter wrote:
> I am running 3.8-stable with RAIDframe RAID-1 and two IDE disks (wd0
> and wd1). Everything thing seems to work (parity is good) but when I
> boot up I get two messages that worry me:
>
> raid0: Device already configured!
> "ioctl (RAIDFRAM
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Peter wrote:
> raid0: Device already configured!
> "ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed"
>
> Can anyone lend a hand in this important matter?
Let me guess (since you didn't post any configuration): you
enabled RAID-autoconfiguration by the kernel *and* yo
I am running 3.8-stable with RAIDframe RAID-1 and two IDE disks (wd0
and wd1). Everything thing seems to work (parity is good) but when I
boot up I get two messages that worry me:
raid0: Device already configured!
"ioctl (RAIDFRAME_CONFIGURE) failed"
Can anyone lend a hand in this important matt
20 matches
Mail list logo
