On Wednesday 11 January 2006 19:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:18:12AM +0900, David Bennett wrote:
> > Here here! I second that.,.. can -F be added after an array is created?
>
> The -F option isn't "added" to the array. It's a mdadm run-time
> argument that tells it to
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:18:12AM +0900, David Bennett wrote:
> Here here! I second that.,.. can -F be added after an array is created?
The -F option isn't "added" to the array. It's a mdadm run-time
argument that tells it to check the array for errors. The -F option
isn't useful (and may even
Here here! I second that.,.. can -F be added after an array is created?
On 1/12/06, Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you decide to go raid5 then you *must* use mdadm -F (otherwise you
> > may well miss a disk failure - it's easy to do). Of course if you use
> > raid0 this isn't impo
On Tuesday 10 January 2006 04:11, David wrote:
> James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >>>mdadm RAID 0 with 3 drives, JFS (my favorite) or XFS file system.
> >>>
> >>>Some may disagree, but in such a simple setup, I don't see any reason to
> >>>add lvm on top of this RAID array, but others may prefer it.
> >>>
>> Don't do this.
>>
>> You shouldn't mix raidtab and mdadm
>> raidtab is obsolete with newer md. Uninstall it.
>>
>> using mdadm the above would be:
>> mdadm --create /dev/md0 --chunk=32 --level=raid0 --raid-devices=2
>> /dev/hda1 /dev/hdc1
>>
>> I suggest reading man mdadm (and why are you settin
On Tuesday 10 January 2006 04:11, David wrote:
> James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >>>mdadm RAID 0 with 3 drives, JFS (my favorite) or XFS file system.
> >>>
> >>>Some may disagree, but in such a simple setup, I don't see any reason to
> >>>add lvm on top of this RAID array, but others may prefer it.
> >>>
On Tuesday 10 January 2006 02:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:53:31PM -0500, Steve Adeff wrote:
> > If I can add drives in after initial creation, I could add in more of my
> > 320gig drives I have with other media on them, increase write speed a bit
> > and not worry abou
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:33 AM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] question about RAID
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:53:31PM -0500, Steve Adeff wrote:
> If I can add drives in after initial creation, I could add in more of
my
> 320gig drives I have with oth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:53:31PM -0500, Steve Adeff wrote:
>
>
>>If I can add drives in after initial creation, I could add in more of my
>>320gig drives I have with other media on them, increase write speed a bit and
>>not worry about losing the other data as well.
James C. Dastrup wrote:
>>>mdadm RAID 0 with 3 drives, JFS (my favorite) or XFS file system.
>>>
>>>Some may disagree, but in such a simple setup, I don't see any reason to
>>>add lvm on top of this RAID array, but others may prefer it.
>>>
>>>Also note, I don't believe you can boot off of a md RA
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:53:31PM -0500, Steve Adeff wrote:
> If I can add drives in after initial creation, I could add in more of my
> 320gig drives I have with other media on them, increase write speed a bit and
> not worry about losing the other data as well.
You can't increase the number o
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:36:14PM -, Johnathon Meichtry wrote:
> but between them you will probably have
> three reads with two probably being on the same disk therefore RAID0 only
> giving you a marginal performance improvement without even taking into
> account disk 1 and disk 2 being on
On Monday 09 January 2006 19:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:03:50AM -0500, Steve Adeff wrote:
> > I was under the impression RAID 0 was the fastest RAID, but has no data
> > protection? Is there no way to get RAID 0 to use more than one drive?
>
> A RAID-0 array with only
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:44:05PM -0700, James C. Dastrup wrote:
> Also note, I don't believe you can boot off of a md RAID 0 drive, so you'll
> need another driver (or network boot) for your boot partition.
The mdadm tools will build arrays out of partitions, so you can
divide up your disks to
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:03:50AM -0500, Steve Adeff wrote:
> I was under the impression RAID 0 was the fastest RAID, but has no data
> protection? Is there no way to get RAID 0 to use more than one drive?
A RAID-0 array with only one drive in it would be pointless, but
possible. The mdadm tool
On Monday 09 January 2006 19:25, James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >> mdadm RAID 0 with 3 drives, JFS (my favorite) or XFS file system.
> >>
> >> Some may disagree, but in such a simple setup, I don't see any reason to
> >> add lvm on top of this RAID array, but others may prefer it.
> >>
> >> Also note, I
>> mdadm RAID 0 with 3 drives, JFS (my favorite) or XFS file system.
>>
>> Some may disagree, but in such a simple setup, I don't see any reason to
>> add lvm on top of this RAID array, but others may prefer it.
>>
>> Also note, I don't believe you can boot off of a md RAID 0 drive, so you'll
>> ne
On Monday 09 January 2006 17:44, James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >> >So what will mdadm do? What is my best option for using 2 drives to get
> >> > the most speed out of them as a combined drive?
> >>
> >> mdadm does a true RAID 0
> >
> >Ok, let me ask the question again...
> >
> >I have 2, possibly 3, 3
>> >So what will mdadm do? What is my best option for using 2 drives to get
>> > the most speed out of them as a combined drive?
>>
>> mdadm does a true RAID 0
>>
>
>Ok, let me ask the question again...
>
>I have 2, possibly 3, 320gig SATA drives. I want to build a RAID array that
>will maximize th
On Monday 09 January 2006 15:59, James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >?On Monday 09 January 2006 14:53, James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >> >All RAID0 does is join (or grow) partitions together. It is very
> >> > useful if you have, for example, three 100GB disks about like them
> >> > joined into a 300GB partitio
Given that this must be taken with a bit of a grain of salt:
hdparm -tT /dev/hda
Timing cached reads: 2820 MB in 2.00 second = 1409.91 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 200 MB in 3.02 seconds = 66.31 MB/sec
hdparm -tT /dev/MD0
Timing cached reads: 2804 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1401.91 MB/sec
Timing
>?On Monday 09 January 2006 14:53, James C. Dastrup wrote:
>> >All RAID0 does is join (or grow) partitions together. It is very useful
>> > if you have, for example, three 100GB disks about like them joined into a
>> > 300GB partition.
>>
>> Not exactly. A true RAID 0 (or a striped set) alternates
server).
Johnathon
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Adeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] question about RAID
On Monday 09 January 2006 14:32, Johnathon Meichtry wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "
hat if you lose one you don't lose the lot and you have a
better chance of getting a performance improvement.
Johnathon
- Original Message -
From: "James C. Dastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion about mythtv"
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 7:53 PM
S
On Monday 09 January 2006 14:32, Johnathon Meichtry wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steve Adeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] question about RAID
>
> > On Sunday 08
On Monday 09 January 2006 14:53, James C. Dastrup wrote:
> >All RAID0 does is join (or grow) partitions together. It is very useful
> > if you have, for example, three 100GB disks about like them joined into a
> > 300GB partition.
>
> Not exactly. A true RAID 0 (or a striped set) alternates writin
>All RAID0 does is join (or grow) partitions together. It is very useful if
>you have, for example, three 100GB disks about like them joined into a 300GB
>partition.
>
Not exactly. A true RAID 0 (or a striped set) alternates writing each block
from one disk to the other. This increases performanc
D]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] question about RAID
> On Sunday 08 January 2006 19:50, Gavin Haslett wrote:
>> RAID 0 would be a straight stripe with no data protection. You were
>> talking about three drives, so in order to use all three y
On Sunday 08 January 2006 19:50, Gavin Haslett wrote:
> RAID 0 would be a straight stripe with no data protection. You were
> talking about three drives, so in order to use all three you'd be
> talking this or a RAID 5 in order to get some modicum of protection.
I was under the impression RAID 0 w
On 1/8/06, Kevin Kuphal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gavin Haslett wrote:>I know you said data protection is not an issue... but believe me when I>tell you that it can become an issue rapidly. You can build a>significant collection of recordings on any reasonable size media (I
>have mirrored 160Gb dr
Gavin Haslett wrote:
I know you said data protection is not an issue... but believe me when I
tell you that it can become an issue rapidly. You can build a
significant collection of recordings on any reasonable size media (I
have mirrored 160Gb drives myself), and there's no recovery if you lose
RAID 0 would be a straight stripe with no data protection. You were
talking about three drives, so in order to use all three you'd be
talking this or a RAID 5 in order to get some modicum of protection.
If you wanted to go RAID 1 or RAID 0+1 then you'd need an even number of
drives, and total capa
If your goal is performance, and you are running a typical PC with
only 1 32-bit PCI bus, then watch out for saturating that bus. You
can get no more performance than the single PCI bus can deliver,
after that more drives give you more space at the cost of performance.
You would have to g
On 1/8/06, Joe Votour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Sunday 08 January 2006 15:14, Joe Votour wrote:> > --- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> > > So you use the raid controller but use mdadm to> > > handle the RAID array?> >> > What you do is use th
--- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 08 January 2006 15:14, Joe Votour wrote:
> > --- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So you use the raid controller but use mdadm to
> > > handle the RAID array?
> >
> > What you do is use the ports in non-RAID mode
> (i.e.
> > make
On Sunday 08 January 2006 15:14, Joe Votour wrote:
> --- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you use the raid controller but use mdadm to
> > handle the RAID array?
>
> What you do is use the ports in non-RAID mode (i.e.
> make them all regular SATA ports) and use mdadm to
> create and ma
On 1/8/06, Joe Votour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Sunday 08 January 2006 14:30, Michael Haan wrote:
> > On 1/8/06, Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > On Sunday 08 January 2006 13:20, Joe Votour> wrote:> > > > --- Steve Adeff <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 08 January 2006 14:30, Michael Haan wrote:
> > On 1/8/06, Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 08 January 2006 13:20, Joe Votour
> wrote:
> > > > --- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the help!
On Sunday 08 January 2006 14:30, Michael Haan wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 08 January 2006 13:20, Joe Votour wrote:
> > > --- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm in need of setting up RAID for my recordings
> > > > drive since now I'm able
On 1/8/06, Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 08 January 2006 13:20, Joe Votour wrote:> --- Steve Adeff <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > I'm in need of setting up RAID for my recordings> > drive since now I'm able to> > capture 2 HD + 1SD at a time, plus want to be able> > to do commerc
On Sunday 08 January 2006 13:20, Joe Votour wrote:
> --- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm in need of setting up RAID for my recordings
> > drive since now I'm able to
> > capture 2 HD + 1SD at a time, plus want to be able
> > to do commercial flagging,
> > and for the time being, play
--- Steve Adeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in need of setting up RAID for my recordings
> drive since now I'm able to
> capture 2 HD + 1SD at a time, plus want to be able
> to do commercial flagging,
> and for the time being, playback at least 1 HD
> stream.
>
> I ordered 2 new harddrive
I'm in need of setting up RAID for my recordings drive since now I'm able to
capture 2 HD + 1SD at a time, plus want to be able to do commercial flagging,
and for the time being, playback at least 1 HD stream.
I ordered 2 new harddrives which, while different than my current recordings
drive ar
43 matches
Mail list logo
