Hi.
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:45:47PM +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> I have a machine with 3 identical disks, thus I'd like to install it
> with a raid5 mdadm configuration.
>
> What should I do for the /boot
You don't need a /boot to be a separate filesystem, if you're using
GRUB2. But if
I have a machine with 3 identical disks, thus I'd like to install it
with a raid5 mdadm configuration.
What should I do for the /boot and /boot/uefi partitions ?
For them I tried to use raid1 with 3 disks configuration, evrything
seemed to work right until the installer tried to install grub.
I
On 8. Nov 2017, at 21:58, deloptes wrote:
>
> Tobx wrote:
>
>> VERBOSE=false
>
> perhaps set to true and see what it says.
The comment to this option states:
# if this variable is set to true, mdadm will be a little more verbose e.g.
# when creating the initramfs.
I tried that, but I did
Tobx wrote:
> RAID assembling at boot only works when no journal device is involved.
>
I can't help much here, nothing to compare. I forgot to mention that md
driver is compiled in the kernel in my case.
> VERBOSE=false
perhaps set to true and see what it says.
>
> Options in /etc/mdadm/mdad
I was on 4.9.0-4 (Stretch), now tried with 4.13.0-0 but had no luck.
I also tried it again on a clean Ubuntu-Server 17.10 with Kernel 4.13.0-16 and
had exactly the same issue:
RAID assembling at boot only works when no journal device is involved.
> On 7. Nov 2017, at 20:04, deloptes wrote:
>
Tobx wrote:
> What am I missing?
I don't know if it is related and I don't use raid5, but rather raid1, and
in the past year or so I had experienced similar with our server. Now I run
4.12.10 and noticed in the changelog/release notes that there are a lot of
fixes in the md stack. The issues are
Hello,
I try to get a RAID 5 array to assemble at boot with mdadm:
# mdadm --create /dev/md/test --level=5 --raid-devices=3
--write-journal=/dev/sde1 /dev/sd[bcd]1
mdadm: Defaulting to version 1.2 metadata
mdadm: array /dev/md/test started.
# /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf > /etc/mdadm/mdadm.c
On 20/08/17 10:04 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 15/08/2017 à 21:47, Gary Dale a écrit :
That still sounds like a bug. If I did a DD from a smaller to a
larger hard disk then used gdisk, I'd expect it to see the new drive
size and handle it correctly.
Gdisk does handle it correctly. It just
Le 15/08/2017 à 21:47, Gary Dale a écrit :
That still sounds like a bug. If I did a DD from a smaller to a larger
hard disk then used gdisk, I'd expect it to see the new drive size and
handle it correctly.
Gdisk does handle it correctly. It just does not correct it
automatically. If you ask
On 08/13/2017 09:32 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
I just added another drive to my RAID 5 array, so it now has 6.
Unfortunately I can't seem to use the extra space. After the array
finished reshaping, I tried to grow the file system but resize2fs
complained that the file system was already the ma
ble in Debian since lenny in 2009. But yes, if
you began using linux in, say, 1994 or so,
that's "recently" ;-)
Well, I've been using Debian since Potato but before that I was using
other distributions so yes, I do go back a ways. However being able to
boot from a RAID 5 pa
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>
> The reason its rare is more likely that Linux hasn't been able to boot
> from mdadm partitions until recently.
IIRC it's been available in Debian since lenny in 2009. But yes, if you
began using linux in, say, 1994 or so,
that's "recently"...
On 14/08/17 01:58 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 14/08/2017 à 06:32, Gary Dale a écrit :
Disk /dev/md1: 39068861440 sectors, 18.2 TiB
Logical sector size: 512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): EFF29D11-D982-4933-9B57-B836591DEF02
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
First usable sector is 34, las
Le 14/08/2017 à 06:32, Gary Dale a écrit :
Disk /dev/md1: 39068861440 sectors, 18.2 TiB
Logical sector size: 512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): EFF29D11-D982-4933-9B57-B836591DEF02
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 31255089118
I just added another drive to my RAID 5 array, so it now has 6.
Unfortunately I can't seem to use the extra space. After the array
finished reshaping, I tried to grow the file system but resize2fs
complained that the file system was already the maximum size. Running
gdisk reveale
check the array for
errors periodically.
This is, indeed, a large problem with a good specified solution.
RAID 6 only takes one more drive and removes even these small
failure windows. RAID 1 simply uses too much hardware for the slight
increase in reliability it gives relative to RAID 5. If you&
or
> errors periodically.
This is, indeed, a large problem with a good specified solution.
> RAID 6 only takes one more drive and removes even these small
> failure windows. RAID 1 simply uses too much hardware for the slight
> increase in reliability it gives relative to RAID 5. If
On 06/03/13 09:49 PM, Richard Hector wrote:
On 07/03/13 07:37, Dick Thomas wrote:
What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
I'd avoid it, if possible.
If you lose a disk from a 2-disk raid1, you're back to the reliability
of a single disk.
If you lose a disk f
On 07/03/13 07:37, Dick Thomas wrote:
> What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
I'd avoid it, if possible.
If you lose a disk from a 2-disk raid1, you're back to the reliability
of a single disk.
If you lose a disk from your 4-disk raid 5, then you've got
e Debian installer allows you to create a whole-disk
>>> RAID array then partition it. You have a single RAID 5 array with some
>>> number of primary partitions (up to 4 - I use 2, / and /home, with swap
>>> files rather than swap partitions but traditionalists may prefe
:) ). The Debian installer allows you to create a
>>> whole-disk
>>> RAID array then partition it. You have a single RAID 5 array with some
>>> number of primary partitions (up to 4 - I use 2, / and /home, with swap
>>> files rather than swap partitions but tra
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
>
> Naw. I was using Wheezy. Partitioning the multiple drives did indeed give
> me /dev/md0 but grub still wanted to install to /dev/sda, and thus failed.
By default, d-i only installs grub to "/dev/sda" when you have an array.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
ay then partition it. You have a single RAID 5 array with some
>> number of primary partitions (up to 4 - I use 2, / and /home, with swap
>> files rather than swap partitions but traditionalists may prefer a swap
>> partition). Grub treats the array like a disk drive and has no proble
On 06/03/13 04:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
Sorry but this isn't difficult (although it may affect top-posters more than
bottom posters :) ). The Debian installer allows you to create a whole-disk
RAID array then partition it. You have a single R
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>
> Sorry but this isn't difficult (although it may affect top-posters more than
> bottom posters :) ). The Debian installer allows you to create a whole-disk
> RAID array then partition it. You have a single RAID 5 array with
x27;s nonsense. Use the
Debian installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on
drives with just one partition (whole disk) as /dev/md0. Then
partition the RAID 5 array into / and /home. Install and reboot.
If you are using Wheezy this will work directly. If you are
using Squeeze then yo
anced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on drives
with just one partition (whole disk) as /dev/md0. Then partition
the RAID 5 array into / and /home. Install and reboot.
If you are using Wheezy this will work directly. If you are using
Squeeze then you may need to fix the UUID in /boot/gru
On 06/03/13 02:37 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
On 03/06/2013 02:34 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 06/03/13 02:31 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 06/03/13 02:26 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
Ignore the advice from Adam Wolfe - it's nonsense. Use the Debian
installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on d
On 03/06/2013 02:34 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 06/03/13 02:31 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 06/03/13 02:26 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
Ignore the advice from Adam Wolfe - it's nonsense. Use the Debian
installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on drives with
just one partition (whole dis
On 6 March 2013 19:31, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 06/03/13 02:26 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ignore the advice from Adam Wolfe - it's nonsense. Use the Debian
>>> installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on drives with just one
>>
On 06/03/13 02:31 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 06/03/13 02:26 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
Ignore the advice from Adam Wolfe - it's nonsense. Use the Debian
installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on drives with
just one partition (whole disk) as /dev/md0. Then partition the RAID
5
On 06/03/13 02:26 PM, Adam Wolfe wrote:
Ignore the advice from Adam Wolfe - it's nonsense. Use the Debian
installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on drives with
just one partition (whole disk) as /dev/md0. Then partition the RAID
5 array into / and /home. Install and r
#x27;rescue', [tab] and add 'dmraid=true'
again.
Then get thee to a shell and 'grub-install --recheck /dev/sdaX' for
each
partition.
On 03/06/2013 01:37 PM, Dick Thomas wrote:
What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
should I make raid 5 for my sys
Ignore the advice from Adam Wolfe - it's nonsense. Use the Debian
installer (advanced mode) to create the RAID 5 array on drives with
just one partition (whole disk) as /dev/md0. Then partition the RAID 5
array into / and /home. Install and reboot.
If you are using Wheezy this will
aid=true' again.
Then get thee to a shell and 'grub-install --recheck /dev/sdaX' for each
partition.
On 03/06/2013 01:37 PM, Dick Thomas wrote:
What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
should I make raid 5 for my system and /home
then raid 0 or 1 for the boot, or
quot;.
Then after the initial install, it would still fail to boot.
Back to the install cd, choose 'rescue', [tab] and add 'dmraid=true'
again. Then get thee to a shell and 'grub-install --recheck
/dev/sdaX' for each partition.
On 03/06/2013 01:37 PM, Dick Th
x27;, [tab] and add 'dmraid=true' again.
> Then get thee to a shell and 'grub-install --recheck /dev/sdaX' for each
> partition.
>
>
>
>
> On 03/06/2013 01:37 PM, Dick Thomas wrote:
>>
>> What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
&g
l, it would still fail to boot.
Back to the install cd, choose 'rescue', [tab] and add 'dmraid=true'
again. Then get thee to a shell and 'grub-install --recheck /dev/sdaX'
for each partition.
On 03/06/2013 01:37 PM, Dick Thomas wrote:
What is the best way to setu
On 06/03/13 01:37 PM, Dick Thomas wrote:
What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
should I make raid 5 for my system and /home
then raid 0 or 1 for the boot, or should I buy a 5th drive for
system/boot and install in the standard way?
as this is my 1st time on debian and not
What is the best way to setup a raid 5 array (4* 2TB drives)
should I make raid 5 for my system and /home
then raid 0 or 1 for the boot, or should I buy a 5th drive for
system/boot and install in the standard way?
as this is my 1st time on debian and not sure what would be best
Dick Thomas
On 25/07/12 12:01 AM, Bob wrote:
On 07/25/2012 11:25 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 24/07/12 09:50 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi I'm trying to upgrade my personal web server & I have a 4 port
SATA2 PCI card with the 4 Hard Drives connected, I'm putting a 1GB
swap partition at the front of each of the 4 500GB driv
On 07/25/2012 11:25 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 24/07/12 09:50 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi I'm trying to upgrade my personal web server & I have a 4 port
SATA2 PCI card with the 4 Hard Drives connected, I'm putting a 1GB
swap partition at the front of each of the 4 500GB drives and the rest
is / in an mdadm s
On 24/07/12 09:50 PM, Bob wrote:
Hi I'm trying to upgrade my personal web server & I have a 4 port
SATA2 PCI card with the 4 Hard Drives connected, I'm putting a 1GB
swap partition at the front of each of the 4 500GB drives and the rest
is / in an mdadm software RAID5 configuration.
I know yo
Hi I'm trying to upgrade my personal web server & I have a 4 port SATA2
PCI card with the 4 Hard Drives connected, I'm putting a 1GB swap
partition at the front of each of the 4 500GB drives and the rest is /
in an mdadm software RAID5 configuration.
I know you cant boot a RAID5 system directl
On 2011-11-08 16:48, Chris Purves wrote:
Hello,
I have a software RAID 5 consisting of 5 disks. One of the disks (sdc) failed
and could no longer be recognized by the BIOS. I replaced it with a new disk
and while the array was rebuilding, another disk (sdd) experienced a read
error, which
Hello,
I have a software RAID 5 consisting of 5 disks. One of the disks (sdc) failed
and could no longer be recognized by the BIOS. I replaced it with a new disk
and while the array was rebuilding, another disk (sdd) experienced a read
error, which caused the disk to be reset and the array
Hello,
I think I'm almost there, but I'm puzzled. I appear to have successfully set up
RAID 5 and LVM following this page:
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/512
I have three 500 GB drives and they are configured like this:
/dev/sda1 is ext4 /boot
/dev/sd[abc]2 are RAID
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone had come across an issue where after rebooting the
system, mdadm is failing to reassemble the entire raid 5 array with all the
drives. I am getting the array up with just /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, but the
array is degraded as a consequence to missing /dev/sdd
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if anyone had come across an issue where after rebooting the
> system, mdadm is failing to reassemble the entire raid 5 array with all the
> drives. I am getting the array up with just /dev/sda and /dev/sdb, but the
> array is degraded as a cons
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:05:46PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, lee wrote:
> > how useful is enabling
> >
> >RAID-4/RAID-5/RAID-6 Multicore processing
> >
> > in the kernel configuration?
>
> It does get faster.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, lee wrote:
> how useful is enabling
>
> RAID-4/RAID-5/RAID-6 Multicore processing
>
> in the kernel configuration?
It does get faster. But is it the bottleneck in your system? Do you
have a slow CPU, or extremely fast backing storage for it to matter
Hi,
how useful is enabling
RAID-4/RAID-5/RAID-6 Multicore processing
in the kernel configuration?
It's an experimental option in 2.6.35.6, and google only showed that
there have been some problems with it in older kernels.
Has anyone enabled it and does it work? Is it working stable e
Joe McDonagh wrote:
Sam Leon wrote:
I have a funny question. I have been playing with a 3 disk raid 5
setup for my desktop. I guess I don't fully understand how the
"stripe" is managed or even what it is. I know the stripe is made up
of a chunk from each disk. Now I always
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 07:11:11AM -0500, Sam Leon wrote:
> I have a funny question. I have been playing with a 3 disk raid 5 setup
> for my desktop. I guess I don't fully understand how the "stripe" is
> managed or even what it is. I know the stripe is made up of a
Mark Allums wrote:
Sam Leon wrote:
I have a funny question. I have been playing with a 3 disk raid 5
setup for my desktop. I guess I don't fully understand how the
"stripe" is managed or even what it is. I know the stripe is made up
of a chunk from each disk. Now I always
Sam Leon wrote:
I have a funny question. I have been playing with a 3 disk raid 5 setup
for my desktop. I guess I don't fully understand how the "stripe" is
managed or even what it is. I know the stripe is made up of a chunk
from each disk. Now I always thought of the str
I have a funny question. I have been playing with a 3 disk raid 5 setup
for my desktop. I guess I don't fully understand how the "stripe" is
managed or even what it is. I know the stripe is made up of a chunk
from each disk. Now I always thought of the stripe in raid the same
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:19:29AM +0100, Jose Legido wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:20:57AM +0100, Jose Legido wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:29:12PM -0500, Jose Legido w
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:20:57AM +0100, Jose Legido wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:29:12PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
>> >>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:20:57AM +0100, Jose Legido wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:29:12PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:53:54PM -0500, Jose Legido w
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:29:12PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:53:54PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
>> >> Hello!
>> >> I have one IDE hard disk hda with the system
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:29:12PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:53:54PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >> I have one IDE hard disk hda with the system (debian testing)
> >> I have a RAID5 with devices sda,b,c
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:53:54PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
>> Hello!
>> I have one IDE hard disk hda with the system (debian testing)
>> I have a RAID5 with devices sda,b,c,d. My raid works fine.
>> One day, I reboot and my hda is converted to
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:53:54PM -0500, Jose Legido wrote:
> Hello!
> I have one IDE hard disk hda with the system (debian testing)
> I have a RAID5 with devices sda,b,c,d. My raid works fine.
> One day, I reboot and my hda is converted to sda.
you upgraded your kernel ? at some point in time t
Hello!
I have one IDE hard disk hda with the system (debian testing)
I have a RAID5 with devices sda,b,c,d. My raid works fine.
One day, I reboot and my hda is converted to sda.
I loaded an old kernel. Know, when I try to mount my RAID i get this error:
# mount -t ext3 /dev/md0 /mnt/raid/
VFS: Ca
hi all,
has anyone installed debian 4.0 rev 3 on an ASUA P5BV with built-in
ICH7R SATA RAID Controller?
my prob is, i used the ICH7R utility to set it up as RAID but on the
installation it still sees it as 3 separate hard drives, if i'm not
mistaken it should only see it as a single drive w
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Stuart Gall wrote:
The other HUGE problem with cheap hardware raid is that in 5 years
time
when your controller dies there is no practical way to recover the
data.
Well, except restoring it from the backup you made. You *did* make
one, right? RAID (hardware
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:33:12AM +0100, Pol Hallen wrote:
> > I need some information about the raid 5 (or 6) using 2 different
> > controller
> > (one integrated in th
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:34:24PM +0100, Pol Hallen wrote:
>
> I looking for howto/infos about raid software 5 and 6 :-)
The RAID-HOWTO (and others): package doc-linux-html (just get the
language you need).
Try wikipedia.
>
> Now I've 6 disks on controller of mb and 4 on pci controller.
>
>
Hi all :-)
I looking for howto/infos about raid software 5 and 6 :-)
Now I've 6 disks on controller of mb and 4 on pci controller.
If I'll change the controller with other (not same) can I've any problems?
How raid known which disks are raid if linux change the address of /sd*?
Thanks!
Pol
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:33:12AM +0100, Pol Hallen wrote:
> I need some information about the raid 5 (or 6) using 2 different controller
> (one integrated in the mother board: 6 sata disks, and other pci controller
> with 4 disks support).
>
> Is there any problem about data
Hi folks!
I need some information about the raid 5 (or 6) using 2 different controller
(one integrated in the mother board: 6 sata disks, and other pci controller
with 4 disks support).
Is there any problem about data security and/or performance?
Is it a bad idea?
Thanks :-)
Pol
--
To
if you don't know you need it,
you probably don't. ;)
> I should also not put the entire thing on raid5
> but rather raid1 for OS with one spare partition, and raid 5 for
> data.
yes. a raid 1 disk can be booted (ignoring certain hardware issues
like some obscure disk driver.
; over economy and buy two of them.
>
> more .02
>
> A
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHkCwYaIeIEqwil4YRAoWBAJ4h2izZo3plj46i5n5FumDyOF3/OQCglKAK
> G0dFlgo1okSneu3KXWclASY=
> =2lrc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
O
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:48:25PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:55:41PM -0500, Patrick Zaloum wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>> I am planning on installing a new Etch server. What I would like is to
>>> use 3xSATA2 disks to create a RAID5 arr
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:55:41PM -0500, Patrick Zaloum wrote:
Hello!
I am planning on installing a new Etch server. What I would like is to
use 3xSATA2 disks to create a RAID5 array. During the install I know I
can create md RAID devices from the partition table
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:55:41PM -0500, Patrick Zaloum wrote:
> Hello!
> I am planning on installing a new Etch server. What I would like is to
> use 3xSATA2 disks to create a RAID5 array. During the install I know I
> can create md RAID devices from the partition tables I set up
> identically on
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Patrick Zaloum wrote:
Hello!
I am planning on installing a new Etch server. What I would like is to
use 3xSATA2 disks to create a RAID5 array. During the install I know I
can create md RAID devices from the partition tables I set up
identically on the 3 disks, but is there
Hello!
I am planning on installing a new Etch server. What I would like is to
use 3xSATA2 disks to create a RAID5 array. During the install I know I
can create md RAID devices from the partition tables I set up
identically on the 3 disks, but is there a more attractive way to set
up the array so th
On Oct 20, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Fab wrote:
Alex Samad samad.com.au> writes:
Lately I tried some different configurations (lvm & partition) to
divide
my raid
5 array.
you might want to check out http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/
BAARF2.html talks
about why you might not want to use r
also sprach Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.10.18.2359 +0200]:
> you might want to check out http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html talks
> about why you might not want to use raid5 in this config and maybe raid1/0
This document is included in the mdadm package. You can find it
where you
Alex Samad samad.com.au> writes:
> > Lately I tried some different configurations (lvm & partition) to divide
> > my raid
> > 5 array.
> you might want to check out http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html talks
> about why you might not want to use raid5 i
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 07:59:36AM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:07:45PM +, Fab wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Lately I tried some different configurations (lvm & partition) to divide my
> > raid
> > 5 array.
> you might want to
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:07:45PM +, Fab wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Lately I tried some different configurations (lvm & partition) to divide my
> raid
> 5 array.
you might want to check out http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html talks
about why you might not want to use r
Hello,
Lately I tried some different configurations (lvm & partition) to divide my raid
5 array.
I noticed that partitioning the array was resulting in far better performances
than using lvm.
I have the following configuration :
-
# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev
also sprach Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.05.0050 +0200]:
> > Please guys, engage in proper quoting!
> you have a link to a how to for mutt ?
There is nothing specific in mutt for this. Proper quoting just
means that you trim the quoted text properly. There is no need to
include all of t
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:45:36PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.02.0044 +0200]:
> > not sure why 3 way though, the spare space on the 3rd drive if
> > i go 2 way i use for tmp or swap or ...
>
> I'd say even tmp or swap need to be redundant si
also sprach Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.02.0044 +0200]:
> not sure why 3 way though, the spare space on the 3rd drive if
> i go 2 way i use for tmp or swap or ...
I'd say even tmp or swap need to be redundant since there is
software out there which will fail if the /tmp filesystem fail
gt; raid 1 / raid 1 /boot raid 5 - pv
> > > >
> > > > I have been looking at why not to raid 5 and I would go to raid 10
> > > > but I can only put 3 drives in my machine.
> > > >
> > > > Currently have 3x250G and am looking at gett
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 08:44:21AM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:48:38AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> > > raid 1 / raid 1 /boot raid 5 - pv
> > >
> > > I have been look
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:48:38AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> > raid 1 /
> > raid 1 /boot
> > raid 5 - pv
> >
> > I have been looking at why not to raid 5 and I would go to raid 10 but I
>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:16:00PM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> raid 1 /
> raid 1 /boot
> raid 5 - pv
>
> I have been looking at why not to raid 5 and I would go to raid 10 but I can
> only put 3 drives in my machine.
>
> Currently have 3x250G and am looking at getting
Hi
I have a machine with 3 sata drives. Currently i have
raid 1 /
raid 1 /boot
raid 5 - pv
I have been looking at why not to raid 5 and I would go to raid 10 but I can
only put 3 drives in my machine.
Currently have 3x250G and am looking at getting 3x500G, if I go to mdadm raid1,
then I
Hi list.
I need ad advice. We have to buy a new raid 5 sata controller with 8
ports available. We already had an Areca arc-1120 but we got some
problems, so we decided to change it.
Looking on internet i found this tree possibilities (ah sorry...we have
to use a pci-x controller):
3WARE 9550SX
On Wednesday, 17.01.2007 at 13:09 -0800, Tom Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2007 06:49, Craig Schneider wrote:
> > Hi Guys
> >
> > Is it a good idea to install debian sarge onto soaftware raid 5?
> >
> > Any thoughts welcome.
>
> Well, I tried on a
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 06:49, Craig Schneider wrote:
> Hi Guys
>
> Is it a good idea to install debian sarge onto soaftware raid 5?
>
> Any thoughts welcome.
Well, I tried on a Dell PowerEdge 4400 with a RAID 5. The install went ok.
However, the darn thing wouldn't load
On 16-jan-2007, at 15:49, Craig Schneider wrote:
Is it a good idea to install debian sarge onto soaftware raid 5?
Well, yes. Raid 5 is a good general choice for a general setup and
software raid works just fine. Just don't know if your system is to
be 'general' or
On Tuesday, 16.01.2007 at 16:49 +0200, Craig Schneider wrote:
> Is it a good idea to install debian sarge onto soaftware raid 5?
Maybe.
It's certainly not a *bad* idea, per se. It totally depends on what
you're planning to use it for and what you're hardware's like.
Da
Hi Guys
Is it a good idea to install debian sarge onto soaftware raid 5?
Any thoughts welcome.
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards
Craig
Good way of resolve this problem is to compile drivers into kernel. Then
the SATA controllers are initiated too eariler than the array building.
More about SATA and arrays using mdadm, but in polish you can find at
http://bu.bee.pl/articles.php?id=1
Regards,
Robson
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (1
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
