similar to: RAID6 in production?

Hello I have a CentOS 6.6 Server with 13 disks in a RAID 6. Some weeks ago, i upgraded it to 17 disks, two of them configured as spare. The reshape worked like normal in the beginning. But at 69% it stopped. md2 : active raid6 sdj1[0] sdg1[18](S) sdh1[2] sdi1[5] sdm1[15] sds1[12] sdr1[14] sdk1[9] sdo1[6] sdn1[13] sdl1[8] sdd1[20] sdf1[19] sdq1[16] sdb1[10] sde1[17](S) sdc1[21] 19533803520

I notice that raid6 is recommended in the manual. eg. "...RAID6 is a must." http://manual.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual16_HTML/DynamicHTML-11-1.html which I found a bit surprising given that in Dec ''06 Peter Braam said on this list "Some of our customers experienced data corruption in the RAID6 layer.", and recommending the CFS optimised md raid5 path through the

Hi What is the general state of btrfs RAID6 as of kernel 3.13-rc1 and the latest btrfs tools? More specifically: - Is it able to correct errors during scrubs? - Is it able to transparently handle disk failures without downtime? - Is it possible to convert btrfs RAID10 to RAID6 without recreating the fs? - Is it possible to add/remove drives to a RAID6 array? Regards, Hans-Kristian -- To

Le 27/06/2019 ? 15:36, Nikos Gatsis - Qbit a ?crit?: > Do I have to consider anything before installation, because the disks > are very large? I'm doing this kind of installation quite regularly. Here's my two cents. 1. Use RAID6 instead of RAID5. You'll lose a little space, but you'll gain quite some redundancy. 2. The initial sync will be very (!) long, something like a

Hello, ?s there anyway to create raid6 or raid5 level glusterfs installation ? >From docs I undetstood that I can do raid1 base glusterfs installation or radi0 (strapting data too all servers ) and raid10 based solution but raid10 based solution is not cost effective because need too much server. Do you have a plan for keep one or two server as a parity for whole glusterfs system

On 06/25/2015 01:20 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > ...It's basically a way to assemble one arbitrary set of block devices > and then divide them into another arbitrary set of block devices, but > now separate from the underlying physical structure. > Regular partitions have various limitations (one big one on Linux > being that modifying the partition table of a disk with in-use

Hi: I have an NFS volume that I'm trying to resize a partition on. Something about the fdisk process is corrupting something on the drive Before running fdisk, I can mount the volume find: $ mount /dev/sdo1 /home ... and the volume is mounted fine. And, $ e2fsck -f /dev/sdo1 /dev/sdo1: clean, ... But then I run fdisk to rewrite the partition table of this drive, to expand the /dev/sdo1

I've been having no end of issues with a 3ware 9650SE-24M8 in a server that's coming on a year old. I've got 24 WDC WD5001ABYS drives (500GB) hooked to it, running as a single RAID6 w/ a hot spare. These issues boil down to the card periodically throwing errors like the following: sd 1:0:0:0: WARNING: (0x06:0x002C): Command (0x8a) timed out, resetting card. Usually when this

Hi all, we got a new test system here and I just also tested btrfs raid6 on that. Write performance is slightly lower than hw-raid (LSI megasas) and md-raid6, but it probably would be much better than any of these two, if it wouldn''t read all the during the writes. Is this a known issue? This is with linux-3.9.2. Thanks, Bernd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:01:00AM +0200, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > 3. Here's a neat little trick you can use to speed up the initial sync. > > $ sudo echo 50000 > /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_min > > I've written a detailed blog article about the kind of setup you want. > It's in French, but the Linux bits are universal. > >

> Il 30/01/19 16:49, Simon Matter ha scritto: >>> On 01/30/19 03:45, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>> Il 29/01/19 20:42, mark ha scritto: >>>>> Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>>>> Il 29/01/19 18:47, mark ha scritto: >>>>>>> Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>>>>>> Il 29/01/19 15:03, mark ha scritto:

I have a 750Gb 3-member software raid1 where 2 partitions are always present and the third is regularly rotated and re-synced (SATA disks in hot-swap bays). The timing of the resync seems to be extremely variable recently, taking anywhere from 3 to 10 hours even if the partition is unmounted and the drives aren't doing anything else and regardless of what I echo into

A user's system had a hard drive failure over the weekend. Linux RAID 6. I identified the drive, brought the system down (8 drives, and I didn't know the s/n of the bad one. why it was there in the box, rather than where I started looking...) Brought it up, RAID not working. I finally found that I had to do an mdadm --stop /dev/md0, then I could do an assemble, then I could add the new

Il 30/01/19 16:49, Simon Matter ha scritto: >> On 01/30/19 03:45, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>> Il 29/01/19 20:42, mark ha scritto: >>>> Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>>> Il 29/01/19 18:47, mark ha scritto: >>>>>> Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>>>>> Il 29/01/19 15:03, mark ha scritto: >>>>>>>

Hello folks, I successfully stopped the software RAID. How can I delete the ones found on scan? I also see them in dmesg. [root at extragreen ~]# mdadm --stop --scan ; echo $? 0 [root at extragreen ~]# mdadm --examine --scan ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid5 num-devices=4 UUID=89af91cb:802eef21:b2220242:b05806b5 ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid6 num-devices=4 UUID=3ecf5270:339a89cf:aeb092ab:4c95c5c3 [root

18. Aug 2017 13:35 by euroregistrar at gmail.com: > Hello all, > > i have already had a discussion on the software raid mailinglist and i > want to switch to this one :) > > I am having a really strange problem with my md0 device running > centos7. after a new start of my server the md0 was gone. now after > trying to find the problem i detected the following: > >

> On 01/30/19 03:45, Alessandro Baggi wrote: >> Il 29/01/19 20:42, mark ha scritto: >>> Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>> Il 29/01/19 18:47, mark ha scritto: >>>>> Alessandro Baggi wrote: >>>>>> Il 29/01/19 15:03, mark ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've no idea what happened, but the box I was working

I installed a fresh copy of Debian 4.0 and Xen 3.1.0 SMP PAE from the binaries. I had a few issues getting fully virtualized guests up and running, but finally managed to figure everything out. Now I''m having a problem with paravirtualized guests and hoping that someone can help. My domU config: # # Configuration file for the Xen instance dev.umucaoki.org, created # by xen-tools

Hello all, i have already had a discussion on the software raid mailinglist and i want to switch to this one :) I am having a really strange problem with my md0 device running centos7. after a new start of my server the md0 was gone. now after trying to find the problem i detected the following: Booting any installed kernel gives me NO md0 device. (ls /dev/md* doesnt give anything). a 'cat

I run a decent amount of 3ware hardware, all under centos-4. There seems to be some sort of fundamental disagreement between ext3 and 3ware's hardware RAID5 mode that trashes write performance. As a representative example, one current setup is 2 9550SX-12 boards in hardware RAID5 mode (256KB stripe size) with a software RAID0 stripe on top (also 256KB chunks). bonnie++ results look