similar to: Ext3 on RAID5 for video archive server

I'm experiencing strange behavior from my ext3 RAID5 array and my Fedora Core 2 system. Before I go crazy varying all sorts of tuning parameters, I thought some list subscribers might provide me with useful advice. The problematic array is: 3x Promise Technology Ultra 100 TX2 PCI cards 6x Maxtor 250GB IDE drives (one drive per cable) RAID level 5, 128Kb chunk size, EXT3: "mkfs -t ext3

I remember that there used to be a problem with disk quotas on Ext3 and Raid5 on the 2.4.x kernel series. I am running 2.4.14 with Ext3 and Raid5 and am having problems with quotas and am wondering if I have something misconfigured or if this combination doesn't work yet. -- Daniel R. Bidwell | bidwell@andrews.edu Andrews University Information Technology Services If two always agree, one of

(It was suggested I send a copy of this to ext3-users, so here it is - note that I need this RAID going so I've rebuilt with reiser, but would still appreciate suggestions; the message was original sent to the lkml) Hi, I've just built an 800GB RAID5 array and built an ext3 file system on it; on trying to copy data off the 200GB RAID it is replacing I'm starting to see errors of the

On Sunday March 16, gilbertd@treblig.org wrote: > Hi, > I've just built an 800GB RAID5 array and built an ext3 file system > on it; on trying to copy data off the 200GB RAID it is replacing I'm > starting to see errors of the form: > > kernel: EXT3-fs error (device md(9,2)): ext3_new_block: Allocating block in > system zone - block = 140509185 > > and >

I just noticed something very strange on one of our Dell PE1750 servers. It is running FreeBSD 4-STABLE on dual CPU's with the embedded Dell Raid controller (amr driver). Attached are 3 disks of 145GB. On a RAID5 logical drive this gives me ~280GB storage. Up until the last reboot (35 days ago) the 'amrcontrol' status utility gave me: Logical drive 0 Stipes blah Size blah

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

I'm setting up a new fileserver. It has two RAID controllers, a PERC 3/DI providing mirrored system disks and a PERC 3/DC providing a 1TB RAID5 volume consisting of eight 144GB U160 drives. This will serve NFS, Samba and sftp clients for about 200 users. The logical drive was created with the following settings: RAID = 5 stripe size = 32kb write policy = wrback read policy =

The following script is written by the author of a book on R--Andy Field: You can also download the small datafile, hiccups.dat, from this address: http://www.sagepub.com/dsur/study/articles.htm The script: hiccupsData <- read.delim("Hiccups.dat", header = TRUE) hiccups<-stack(hiccupsData) names(hiccups)<-c("Hiccups","Intervention")

I have 4 disks in a RAID5 array. I want to add a 5th. So I did mdadm --add /dev/md3 /dev/sde1 This worked but, as expected, the disk isn't being used in the raid5 array. md3 : active raid5 sde1[4] sdd4[3] sdc3[2] sdb2[1] sda1[0] 2930279808 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] So then I tried the next step: mdadm --grow --raid-devices=5 /dev/md3 But now I have

I was hoping someone could either help me or point me in the direction of a resource. I have searched the web for any howto on repairing a failed array, but keep coming up short. I have a home file server running a RAID 5 array that now will not mount my array. I believe it is telling me there is a problem with the second drive. The basics: RedHat 8.0 kernel 2.4.20-28.8 don't know the

Hello all! I've got CGYWIN running on an NT4 server, which in turn allows me to run Rsync as a daemon on this system. And might I say, it works most excellently, except for one flaw. It doesn't work on my raid drive(s). I have a 56 gig NTFS RAID5 drive running off an adaptec raid-port controller card. I have two other drives in this system, a 4 gig SCSI boot drive, and 60 gig IDE

Hi, I sent a message to linux-kernel that describes exactly what I did to thourally fsck up my ext3, but now I'm trying to see if I can recover more than the ext3 kernel driver will let me get to... http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106745677408810&w=2 Now that you've read that, and you haven't given up hope (stubbornly like me), then I'd like to know what I

So when I couldn't get the raid10 to work, I decided to do raid5. Everything installed and looked good. I left it overnight to rebuild the array, and when I came in this morning, everything was frozen. Upon reboot, it said that 2 of the 4 devices for the raid5 array failed. Luckily, I didn't have any data on it, but how do I know that the same thing won't happen when I have

Signed-off-by: Matias Bjørling <m@bjorling.me> --- man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in index 41163e0..db8c57c 100644 --- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in +++ b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ mkfs.btrfs uses all the available storage for the filesystem. .TP \fB\-d\fR, \fB\-\-data

Hi all, Sorry for the OT. I've got an IBM N3300-A10 NAS. It runs Data Ontap 7.2.5.1. The problem is, from the docs it says that it only supports either RAID-DP or RAID4. What I want to achieve is Max Storage Capacity, so I change it from RAID-DP to RAID4, but with RAID4, the maximum disk in a RAID Group decrease from 14 to 7. In the end, either using RAID-DP or RAID4, the capacity is the same.

Hello, I have a RAID5 array on my CentOS 5.6 x86_64 workstation which "suddenly" failed to work (actually after the system could not resume from a suspend). I had recently issues after moving the workstation to another office, where one of the disks got accidently unplugged. But the RAID was working and it had reconstructed (as far as I can tell) the data. After I replugged the disk,

hi, after we switch our servers from centos-3 to centos-4 (aka. rhel-4) one of our server always crash once a week without any oops. this happneds with both the normal kernel-2.6.9-11.EL and kernel-2.6.9-11.106.unsupported. after we change the motherboard, the raid contorller and the cables too we still got it. finally we start netdump and last but not least yesterday we got a crash log and a

Sorry, this is going to be a rather long post...Here's the situation; I have 4 IDE disks from an old snap server which fails to mount the raid array. We believe there is a controller error on the SNAP so we've put them in another box running CentOS 5 and can see the disks OK. hda thru hdd looks like this Disk /dev/hdd: 185.2 GB, 185283624960 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 22526

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

We have several DELL servers with MD1000 connect to it. Server will install CENTOS 5.x X86_64 version. My questions are: 1. Which configuration have better performance RAID5, RAID50 or RAID60? 2. how much performance difference? ___________________________________________________ ??????? ? ???????????????? http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/