similar to: Newbie needs help with failed RAID5 disk

Hey all, well, first of all (even if it's quite late as it's in version 3.0.7 already): thanks a lot to all who are developing and supporting Samba! I'm new to Linux and I really like the way things are happening on this OS. But now, I've reached a point where I have to raise the white flag... It seems to me like - at least my - software raid can't dance Samba. I've got

Hi Arnaud, Is there any news about this hardware,does nut managed it right now ? Is there any technical information to make it working on debian ? Thanks for your help, Regards, DaneZ _____ From: Arnaud QUETTE [mailto:Arnaud.QUETTE@mgeups.com] To: DaneZ [mailto:david.guillotte@danez.no-ip.org] Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:07:03 +0200 Subject: Re: RE Fw: INFOSEC 500 XP

Hi, I'm current trying to run an application for configure some divices using serial ports, I installed wine 1.0 over Ubuntu 6.06 but can't get the program run here is the program http://a-m-c.com/download/software/amcds3-7-6.zip the message I get is: "uknonw error 0x800401F3", is that mean something? thanks in advance

Hi, I have 2 identical xSeries 346 with 2 identical IBM 72GB scsi drive. What i did is install the centos 4.2 serverCD on the first IBM and set the HDD to raid1 and raid0 for swap. Now what i did is get the 2nd HDD in the 1st Server swap it with the 1st HDD in the 2nd Server and rebuild the Raids. The 1st server rebuild the array fine. My problem is the Second server, after rebuilding it and

------------------------------------------------------------------From:David Winsemius <dwinsemius at comcast.net>Send Time:2018 May 4 (Fri) 13:25To:??? <sunyeping at aliyun.com>Cc:R Help Mailing List <r-help at r-project.org>Subject:Re: [R] why the length and width of a plot region produced by the dev.new() function cannot be correctly set?

I recently came across an enormous cluster of x86 clone machines running fedora core 1 (2.4.24) which have typically all intel or amd have VIA IDE chipsets. They frequently experience corrupted journals rendering the ext3 partition in read-only mode. More important than recovering the filesystem, I am interested in finding the root of the problem. The common hardware that all of these

------------------------------------------------------------------From:Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>Send Time:2018 May 4 (Fri) 17:24To:??? <sunyeping at aliyun.com>; David Winsemius <dwinsemius at comcast.net>Cc:R Help Mailing List <r-help at r-project.org>Subject:Re: [R] why the length and width of a plot region produced by the dev.new() function cannot be

I've got a new PE2950 rack system with PERC controller and 6 drives set up contiguously as one RAID5 volume on the PERC controller. Using 64-bit CentOS 4.4, I partitioned for /boot having 100 Meg, swap having 2 gig, and / with the rest (removed LVM). After the install was complete, the system rebooted and just gave me a broken grub prompt (not the graphical Grub boot selector, but

Hi there, Sorry for the dup, here are more informations. I'll soon run RedHat4 U4 ES with multiple 4TB partitions made of a 7-disks RAID5 array. Almost all files on these partitions will have a fixed size of 32MB. Should I leave the default raid chunk size to 64k with ext3's 4k blocks ? What are the best tweaks around to optimize overall performance ? Thanks, Ionel -- Ionel GARDAIS

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

(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

Hi, originally I posted this to linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, but I guess there are chances that someone in here might comment on it as well. TIA. * Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> [2003-03-20 10:58]: > On Thursday March 20, lists@schlich.org wrote: > > > > And when I try to mount the array: > > --8<-- > > EXT3-fs error (device md(9,1)):

Further to my posts a few days (weeks?) ago, here''s an update on the situation. After the the Raid array finally rebuild, CentOS4 installed and now runs without a problem. The card is an adaptec 2410SA SATA raid card. Michael Weisman The Ad Doctors mike@theaddoctors.com

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

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

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, I've finally got some time to finish the second article I've promised to write some time ago; please read it, any comments are welcome: http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/Repair_RAID5_Volumes -- Lev.

greetings, i just know i have read several times on this list and in other places that on a RAID5 array that the MBR should be placed on the /boot partition. is this truly correct and if so, why? my experiences of putting the MBR on the /boot partition are contrary to that it will even work and boot that way... comments please? regards, - rh -- Robert Hanson Abba Communications

I have a raid5 on an onboard ICH9R FAKERAID. I was booting into windows and windows crashed as it sometimes does, which put my array into a degraded step. At some point before the array finished rebuilding I unplugged one of the drives and forgot to plug it back in. When I booted up the system, it told me that the array was now failed. I plugged the drive back in, but the array stays as

I had a raid5 on an onboard Intel ICH9R chip under windows. Windows crashed, as it often does, and the array became degraded. At some point during the rebuild, I was doing some hardware maintanence and unplugged one of the drives, and forgot to plug it back in. When I booted up, the array came back as failed. I turned off the PC, plugged the drive back in and powered it back on, but the