> vgcreate vg2t /dev/sda /dev/sdb
> lvcreate --type raid0 -name lv-stg --size 16700GiB vg2t
I solved the problem by manually activating it initially.
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:41 PM Tom Dial wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/28/21 12:58, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your &#
f
you did not specify an allocation rule in the lvcreate command that
created the volume group. Based on my experience and existing volume
groups, it also is the default for vgcreate command if nothing else is
specified.
The above also shows "LV Status NOT available". That likely indicates
On Fri, 28 May 2021 21:10:03 +0200
john doe wrote:
> On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
> >
> > There is no encrypted volume.
> >
>
> That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
No, not if (as M. Atmaca has alr
Hi.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 09:31:06PM +0300, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
>
...
> [Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:2: raid: Failed
> to run raid array
> [Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:
> That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
thanks, i didn't know. I will check it. :)
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:10 PM john doe wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> >> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
> >
> > There is no encrypted volume.
On 5/28/2021 8:58 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
There is no encrypted volume.
That file (1) needs to be populated for it to work at boot! :)
1)
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-crypt/System_configuration#Mounting_at_boot_time
--
John Doe
> Is your '/etc/crypttab' file properly populated?
There is no encrypted volume.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:37 PM john doe wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
> > Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
> >
> > [Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX
On 5/28/2021 8:31 PM, Gokan Atmaca wrote:
Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
[Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX (outside TXT) disabled by BIOS
[Fri May 28 14:14:20 2021] r8169 :06:00.0: unknown chip XID 641
[Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: tabl
Additionally I found something like the following in the dmesg logs.
[Fri May 28 14:14:19 2021] x86/cpu: VMX (outside TXT) disabled by BIOS
[Fri May 28 14:14:20 2021] r8169 :06:00.0: unknown chip XID 641
[Fri May 28 14:14:22 2021] device-mapper: table: 253:2: raid: Failed
to run raid array
[Fr
Hello
I did LVM raid 0. But when reboot the disks come as "inherit".
What would be the reason ?
lvdisplay
--- Logical volume ---
LV Path/dev/vg2t/lv-st0
LV Namelv-st0
VG Namevg2t
LV UUIDJOfIdw-8uhQ-OvsF-4Sdp-LMDm-NEVv-UMjFD
Le 29/07/2019 à 00:26, Finariu Florin a écrit :
Hi everyone,
I can not install GRUB on Debian 10.It's fail every time.
AFAIK GRUB supports RAID and most software RAID levels (only "linear" is
not supported).
How does it fail ? What is the error message ? What is displayed in the
log console
On 11/5/18 9:17 AM, Finariu Florin wrote:
Hi,
Hi. :-)
Somebody can help me with some information about why I can not see the Raid0
created in bios?
I have a motherboard EPC602D8A with 2 chipsets: Intel C602 (Sata 2 x 4, Sata 3
x 2) and Marvell SE9172 (Sata 3 x 2). I create in BIOS a Raid0
Hi Matthias,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:15:43PM +0200, Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> I am using Mint LMDE2 with debian backports. So I do have kernel
> 4.4+71~bpo8+1 running.
> btrfs tools are from debian stable, which has version 3.17. I am wondering if
> it would make sense to also get the too
Hello Andy,
I am trying to stay with newest versions as long as it does not jeopardize
stability.
I am using Mint LMDE2 with debian backports. So I do have kernel 4.4+71~bpo8+1
running.
btrfs tools are from debian stable, which has version 3.17. I am wondering if
it would make sense to also ge
You are right. I did the same test with dd. It took a while ;-)
23# dd if=/dev/zero of=file.zero
dd: Schreiben in „file.zero“: Auf dem Gerät ist kein Speicherplatz mehr
verfügbar
1462670786+0 Datensätze ein
1462670785+0 Datensätze aus
748887441920 Bytes (749 GB) kopiert, 14831,9 s, 50,5 MB/s
24#
On 04/16/2016 12:00 AM, Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
I have 3 hard drive with 750 GB, 500 GB and 250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
thinking to create a raid0
Hello,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 01:35:20PM +0200, Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso wrote:
> Still btrfs is quite young, I am not sure if there are serious issues in
> 3.17,
> I would make some experiments before actual use.
If you are going to use btrfs I would consider it essential to be
subscribed to
On sábado, 16 de abril de 2016 12:05:05 (CEST) Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> 38# df -h /mnt/test/
> Dateisystem Größe Benutzt Verf. Verw% Eingehängt auf
> /dev/sdg 699G 17M 466G 1% /mnt/test
df is not reliable for btrfs raids, it is better to use btrfs fi df to check
actual used space.
Using b
I have 3 hard drive with 750 GB, 500 GB and 250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
>>> filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
>>>
>>> My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
>>> thinking to create a raid0 with the
250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
>> filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
>>
>> My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
>> thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 250 GB drive. This would result
>> in a raid0
0 GB data capacity. So I was
> thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 250 GB drive. This would result
> in a raid0 with 750 GB capacity. I want to add this raid0 as a mirror in a
> raid1 with the other 750 GB drive.
>
> But how do I do that?
>
> Thanks
> Matthias
Disc
Hello,
I have 3 hard drive with 750 GB, 500 GB and 250 GB. I want to use btrfs as
filesystem. This will be my first test installation of btrfs.
My target is to get redundancy as well as a 750 GB data capacity. So I was
thinking to create a raid0 with the 500 and 250 GB drive. This would
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:50:05 AM UTC-5, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> ray a écrit :
> >
> > Using Linux software RAID0, my speed (MB/s) findings are:
> > Single SSDRAID0, 2 SSDs
> > Intel SATA III540 960
> > Intel SATA II
ray a écrit :
>
> Using Linux software RAID0, my speed (MB/s) findings are:
> Single SSDRAID0, 2 SSDs
> Intel SATA III540 960
> Intel SATA II 530 535
SATA II has a maximum throughput of 300 MB/s, so I wonder how you can
reach 530 MB/
To follow-up:
The SATA controllers are on an Asus P9X79-E WS. The controllers consist of:
Intel SATA III, 2 ports
Intel SATA II, 4 ports
Marvel SATA III, 4 ports
I had previously benchmarked controller based RAID0 and Linux RAID0 and found
the software solution on this box was 10% slower than
ec. In the RAID0
configuration, the speed vary significantly:
30+30 535 MB/sec
60+60 720 MB/sec
120+120 1040 MB/sec
For the 30G modules, the RAID0 slows down performance. I would like to know how
I can trouble shoot this poor performance.
Any suggestions?
Francesco Pietra wrote:
> PS: You did not comment whether the "pipe' command that I use to verify
> grub has a general validity. As far as I could use it, I found it
> equivalent to examining each disk, one at a time.
It was clever! It was definitely in the spirit of the Unix
philosophy. At the
Hello:
I know that a correct software mirror raid is subject to failures, when
anything wrong is written to both disks. And I also know that hardware
mirror raid is subject to hardware failures. I said at the beginning that I
keep two wheezy mirror-raid servers with the same data and software. Now
Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
> something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with
> very limited ability in recovering from disk failures.
I must express concern. While RAID is very useful to keeping a sys
13 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Debian installer and raid0
To: debian-users , amd64 Debian <
debian-am...@lists.debian.org>
I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with
very limited ability in re
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>
> I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
> something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with very
> limited ability in recovering from disk failures.
>
> I planned to use the double-
I hope not to bother beyond the limit, but the security of mirror raid is
something of utmost importance, at least in my work of biochemist, with
very limited ability in recovering from disk failures.
I planned to use the double-opteron, two sockets, server, tya 64, as a
victim for the test you su
Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
Press a key on the keyboard before the 5 second count down timer
counts all of the way down. Pressing a key stops the timer and causes
it to stay on the menu waiting for keyboard input.
Bob
signature.asc
Des
I have no other machines than the said two servers. As soon as a machine
was dismissed, parts were recovered for the new machines. Does not matter,
I'll try. What I was also asking, however, was how to boot to the grub only:
I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
>
> With bot
Klaus wrote:
> Francesco Pietra wrote:
> >I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
>
> When the system starts booting, the grub menu entries appear on
> screen. After a timeout (default 5 sec) the default entry is
> selected and the boot sequence continues. For details, here is
Francesco Pietra wrote:
> Thanks so much. I am also using raid1 since I met Debian, so many years
> ago. However the poor way I described. I'll do what you suggest as soon
> time permits, although the cables to the HDs in the old server are
> difficultly accessible. And, in the meantime, I would be
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>>
>> recall that it has been added with Wheezy. But let me put forward
>> that it doesn't really matter. If you have RAID then you know you
>> want grub on both disks. After installing simply run the grub install
>> script against both dis
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Francesco Pietra
> wrote:
>>
>> Did you use a recent version of the installer? What I would like to know -
>> before reinstalling everything on my servers - is whether the option to set
>> grub on both disks of raid
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Francesco Pietra wrote:
>
> Did you use a recent version of the installer? What I would like to know -
> before reinstalling everything on my servers - is whether the option to set
> grub on both disks of raid 0 has now been introduced.
No.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
On 05/10/13 09:00, Francesco Pietra wrote:
I forgot asking naively how to boot safely to the grub menu.
When the system starts booting, the grub menu entries appear on screen.
After a timeout (default 5 sec) the default entry is selected and the
boot sequence continues. For details, here is t
From: Francesco Pietra
Date: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Debian installer and raid0
To: debian-users , amd64 Debian <
debian-am...@lists.debian.org>
Thanks so much. I am also using raid1 since I met Debian, so many years
ago. However the poor way I described. I'll d
Thanks so much. I am also using raid1 since I met Debian, so many years
ago. However the poor way I described. I'll do what you suggest as soon
time permits, although the cables to the HDs in the old server are
difficultly accessible. And, in the meantime, I would be at a single
server, insecure as
Francesco Pietra wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > After installing simply run the grub install script against both
> > disks manually and then you will be assured that it has been
> > installed on both disks.
>
> I had problems with that methodology and was unable to detect my error.
> >From a threa
t;
>
Now I am in the same situation, two servers with mirroring raid, grub on
/dev/sda only. Identical data on both servers to cope with grub on one disk
only. Not smart from my side.
> I agree with the other responder. It is unlikely IMNHO that you want
> RAID0 (striping) for the sy
ponder. It is unlikely IMNHO that you want
RAID0 (striping) for the system disk. You most likely want RAID1
(mirroring) instead. The answer above is the same regardless. If you
are thinking striping for performance instead I recommend using an SSD
for the system disk.
Bob
signature.asc
Descri
Installing any OS on a RAID 0 (striping) is very strange thing to do -
considering that disk failure in a RAID 0 = everything on this RAID0
is lost.
Maybe you've meant RAID1 (mirroring)?
Reco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
Hello:
Did you use a recent version of the installer? What I would like to know -
before reinstalling everything on my servers - is whether the option to set
grub on both disks of raid 0 has now been introduced.
Thanks
francesco pietra
Hi all,
Having installed debian onto a hardware raid pc setup, using dmraid=true
switch, I attempt to repair the failed grub/lilo bootlader install after
rebooting into rescue, again with dmraid=true
How can I get grub installed?
Background info:
Partitioning setup according to guided lvm cry
mode
Drives 2 and 3 in RAID0, splitted in 2 x 2TB folders
Installation is going weel, GRUB installed on the first disk. While
it's installating, from alt-f2 I looked at the dev folder and I'm able
to see the Volume0px files.
After restart. grub is staring correctly, but it's not ab
Small update.
I have installed a 3rd drive to try another option. All 3 exactly the
same, 3 x 2TB.
1st drive in standard mode
Drives 2 and 3 in RAID0, splitted in 2 x 2TB folders
Installation is going weel, GRUB installed on the first disk. While
it's installating, from alt-f2 I looked a
Hi,
I'm trying for the 2 last days to install a Debian Wheezy on a RAID0
drive but I'm facing many issues.
I have 2 x 2TB drives configured in a 4TB RAID0 drive.
I initially used the b3 net installer but it was missing the grub bios
partition.
Now, I'm using B4, starting it w
Jason Myers put forth on 10/29/2010 1:31 AM:
> Hi, whenever I start writing more than 100MB to the raid, it starts going
> 200KB/s and the iowait shown on "top" goes to 99%.. The disks lock up
> completely, shown on iostat. What would cause something like this?
More details would probably be helpf
Hi, whenever I start writing more than 100MB to the raid, it starts going
200KB/s and the iowait shown on "top" goes to 99%.. The disks lock up
completely, shown on iostat. What would cause something like this?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After setting up RAID0 using DELL SAS utility, I could try another
>> installation of a debian stable 503 from USB Stick.
>> I
Hello,
As I am trying some configurations for storage solution. I found out
that, the last block device (normally, by alphabet) in striped LV or
soft RAID 0 will have longer await. Especially in high concurrency IO.
The same time, its avgrq-sz is more than others, but rrqm/s, wrqm/s, r/s
and
.
> Does it work in conjunction with the raid tools like mdadm or is this
> something completely different?
It is something completely different, but they compliment each other
nicely. One of the downfalls of LVM is that (like your raid0) if you
lose one disk, you pretty much lose the whole files
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
> Hi guys.
> I've got a machine with two drives in a raid0 config.
> I've added a third drive to this machine. I am not using lvm.
> If I want to add this third drive in to the md device how would I go
> about
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Tom Moore wrote:
> Hi guys.
> I've got a machine with two drives in a raid0 config.
> I've added a third drive to this machine. I am not using lvm.
> If I want to add this third drive in to the md device how would I go
> about
Hi guys.
I've got a machine with two drives in a raid0 config.
I've added a third drive to this machine. I am not using lvm.
If I want to add this third drive in to the md device how would I go
about doing this?
I added the third drive in to the mdadm config file and set the
partition
On Monday 11 September 2006 19:35, Gary Catalano wrote:
> Anyone have experience setting up RAID on Debian Testing etch-3 (or
> something similar?) I'm having a bear of a time.
I did it, but you have to do a few things which are not straight forward.
This is approximately how I did it assuming t
Title: RAID0 Set-up?
Anyone have experience setting up RAID on Debian Testing etch-3 (or something similar?) I'm having a bear of a time.
Gary Catalano
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
> Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
> and RAID5.
>
> As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a
> scenario:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Gilles Mocellin wrote:
Le mercredi 9 ao?t 2006 16:18, Tomasz Chmielewski a ?crit?:
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of
Le mercredi 9 août 2006 16:18, Tomasz Chmielewski a écrit :
> I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
> Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
> and RAID5.
>
> As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried su
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
> Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
> and RAID5.
Supposing you don't have a *really* good reason to want to use the RAID10
mode (not
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Larry Irwin wrote:
It is so much better to use hardware raid.
And it's even better if you properly utilize a dual-channel raid
controller.
Any ideas how to install a hardware raid controller into this device?
http://www.thecus.com/products_ove
Larry Irwin wrote:
It is so much better to use hardware raid.
And it's even better if you properly utilize a dual-channel raid
controller.
Any ideas how to install a hardware raid controller into this device?
http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=1&pid=2
It's just not possible.
Besid
i" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: RAID10 on Debian (or RAID0 on top of RAID1) - possible?
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10
Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
(...)
How can I set up RAID-10 (or RAID-0 on top of RAID-1) using the Debian
installer?
(...)
Seeing how RAID-10 is still experimental in the kernel, the installer
will probably not support it for awhile. I'd suggest yo
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1 and
RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a scenario:
-R0
I wanted to install a Debian system on RAID-10, on 4 disks.
Unfortunately, it seems that Debian installer only supports RAID0, RAID1
and RAID5.
As RAID-10 is technically RAID-0 on top of RAID-1s, I tried such a scenario:
-R0-
| |
R1 R1
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:51 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > That's why I qualified my statement with "large bits of data".
>
[snip]
>
> but if your files are less than one chunk-size... does that mean
> it all gets written to one disk ??
With raid 0, I
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That's why I qualified my statement with "large bits of data".
:-)
> > same for 100GB files .. to split it into 2x 50GB each
> > on each spindle
> >
> > should be a fun driver to write(if needed), config and test
>
> Doesn't the md driver d
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 20:31 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > Sure you will. If you are dealing with large bits of data,
> > writing to it will be N times faster because the computer writes
> > chunks of data to the disks in parallel.
>
> yup.. if you read/
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Sure you will. If you are dealing with large bits of data,
> writing to it will be N times faster because the computer writes
> chunks of data to the disks in parallel.
yup.. if you read/write data from the the 2 spindles
can the ide drivers be told
t
> to read 2x faster
>
> raid0 is stripping ... just making two 40GB disks looking like one bigger
> 80GB disk ... you will NOT get any performance benefits from raid0
Sure you will. If you are dealing with large bits of data,
writing to it will be N times faster because the
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> single drive.
raid1 is mrirror .. same data on both disks ... so you should expect
to read 2x faster
raid0 is stripping ... just making two 40GB disks lookin
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0200, Bruno Diniz wrote:
> I´m running kernel 2.6.8 from stable. After trying a lot of possible
> solutions, I faced (possibly) the solution. This machine has four memory
> slots and is able to deal with 4GB. When I use the four 1GB memory chips, I
> get the syst
t that bad, with
2.6.13, but it'sdefinately slower than earlier 2.6 kernels. raid0 performance used to bevery good. raid1 has always sucked (reads no faster than a single drive)./dev/md0:Timing buffered disk reads: 322 MB in
3.01 seconds = 107.06 MB/sec/dev/sda:Timing buffered disk reads: 216 M
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 11:05 -0200, Bruno Diniz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with
> them using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that
> after configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) i
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:45:35AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Are those SCSI disks or IDE disks that are being accessed via SCSI
> emulation?
They're sata, on a sil3114.
--
Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:33:05AM -0500, Tom Vier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:35:05AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> > single drive. Writing is where the performance is not nearly as good.
> > But the, I am usin
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:35:05AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> How is that? The RAID1 on my system read at nearly 2x the speed of a
> single drive. Writing is where the performance is not nearly as good.
> But the, I am using IDE drives with each of the two drive son its own
> channel.
No
nds = 59.81 MB/sec
> > /dev/md0:
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 134 MB in 3.04 seconds = 44.09 MB/sec
>
> What kernel are you running? I don't have it that bad, with 2.6.13, but it's
> definately slower than earlier 2.6 kernels. raid0 performance used to be
> very
seconds = 44.09 MB/sec
What kernel are you running? I don't have it that bad, with 2.6.13, but it's
definately slower than earlier 2.6 kernels. raid0 performance used to be
very good. raid1 has always sucked (reads no faster than a single drive).
/dev/md0:
Timing buffered disk rea
> I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with them
> using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that after
> configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is slower than
> each of the disks individually. Look at the numbers:
<
Hi all,
I have a system with two S-ATA hard disks and I configured raid0 with
them using mdadm. Each HD has 200GB of capacity. What is weird is that
after configuring the raid, the newly created device (/dev/md0) is
slower than each of the disks individually. Look at the numbers:
hdparm -Tt /dev
Quoting Mike Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
yesterday I tried installing Debian onto a raid0 array using this
guide <http://tnt.aufbix.org/linux/raid/>, but it quickly became too
overwhelming for me, so I quit the installation and went through an
installation like I always have (net
yesterday I tried installing Debian onto a raid0 array using this
guide <http://tnt.aufbix.org/linux/raid/>, but it quickly became too
overwhelming for me, so I quit the installation and went through an
installation like I always have (netinstall from woody floppies).
everything installs fin
hello,
If the following problem is already solved, sorry - I didn't found any
helpfull advice..
Configuration: Asus P4C800E Deluxe
Promise Fastrack 378
2 SATA HDDs Seagate 160GB 7200rpm on proprietary promise
hw/sw RAID0
I have W2K on Raid0 array
hello,
If the following problem is already solved, sorry - I didn't found any
helpfull advice..
Configuration: Asus P4C800E Deluxe
Promise Fastrack 378
2 SATA HDDs Seagate 160GB 7200rpm on proprietary promise
hw/sw RAID0
I have W2K on Raid0 array
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:35:29 +0930, David Purton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopelessly offtopic queston, but oh well, someone here is bound to have
> more clue than me.
>
> We have a Dell 600SC server with IDE Raid0 (two disks). This morning it
> was making load beeping no
Hopelessly offtopic queston, but oh well, someone here is bound to have
more clue than me.
We have a Dell 600SC server with IDE Raid0 (two disks). This morning it
was making load beeping noises and claimed that one of its disks had
failed.
Just to see what would happen, we forced the failed
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:24:08PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I want to install debian on asus p4p800,
> with e1000, and ichr5 chipset raid0 on sata.
>
> I have tried two weeks ago.
> I installed with kernel-2.4.23 and patchs iswraid,libata.
> (sorry, I don
I want to install debian on asus p4p800,
with e1000, and ichr5 chipset raid0 on sata.
I have tried two weeks ago.
I installed with kernel-2.4.23 and patchs iswraid,libata.
(sorry, I don't remember version's patchs).
But the system fall down, when I run on XP, Linux fall d
* snip *
>It sounds simple, but if you get into trouble, you might want to
search the
>archives for problems other people have had, or you might want to
check out
>this link:
>http://rootraiddoc.alioth.debian.org/
>
>It's quite complete, very recent, and a good resource. I recommend
reading
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 08:56, Harland Christofferson wrote:
> *snip*
>
> >
> >What is the partition type on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hdc1? If they
> >are not both
> >FD (Linux raid autodetect), your raid array won't work.
>
> the partition type? okay ... new territory for me. they are ext2
> w/ ID of 8
At Tuesday, 15 June 2004, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 15 June 2004 07:53, Harland Christofferson wrote:
>> this is my fist time installing raid0 on a machine that is not a
>> new install. /dev/hda has gobs of good data i don't want to lose.
>> /dev/hdc is newly partit
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 07:53, Harland Christofferson wrote:
> this is my fist time installing raid0 on a machine that is not a
> new install. /dev/hda has gobs of good data i don't want to lose.
> /dev/hdc is newly partitioned and formatted before installing the
> raid tools.
&
this is my fist time installing raid0 on a machine that is not a
new install. /dev/hda has gobs of good data i don't want to lose.
/dev/hdc is newly partitioned and formatted before installing the
raid tools.
kernel version is 2.4.18-k7
i installed raidtools2 and mdadm.
i created a new
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
