similar to: RAID 6 - opinions

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 on last week

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: I am looking for a recommendation for a PCI-e RAID card for my server. The server has a PCI-e x16 low profile slot so the card has to be at most 6.6 inches long x 2.536 inches high. I would like to use RAID 5 with 3 drives so I have to have those capabilities. It has to be CentOS 5.4 compatible (Of course!). I took a look at the offerings from 3Ware, but their cards are too long. If

Can anyone provide a tutorial or advice on how to configure a software RAID 5 from the command-line (since I did not install Gnome)? I have 8 x 1.5tb Drives. -Jason

Hi, we would like to establish a small Lustre instance and for the OST planning to use standard Dell PE1950 servers (2x QuadCore + 16 GB Ram) and for the disk a JBOD (MD1000) steered by the PE1950 internal Raid controller (Raid-6). Any experience (good or bad) with such a config ? thanxs, Martin

Hi, I am looking into purchasing a new server. This server will be mission-critical. I have read and somewhat understood the theories behind RAIDs 0, 1, 5, 10 & JBOD. However, I would like to get some feedback from those who have experience in implementing and recovering from a HDD failure using RAID. Hardware specs include:- Dual Xeon 3.2 GHz 2 GB RAM I would like to implement

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, I just replaced Slackware64 14.1 running on my office's HP Proliant Microserver with a fresh installation of CentOS 7. The server has 4 x 250 GB disks. Every disk is configured like this : * 200 MB /dev/sdX1 for /boot * 4 GB /dev/sdX2 for swap * 248 GB /dev/sdX3 for / There are supposed to be no spare devices. /boot and swap are all supposed to be assembled in RAID level 1 across

Got a new box I'm trying to set up. I configured the RAID from the firmware, but "fast initialize" was sitting there at 0% (it's about 43 or 45TB). The first time I tried this, I said background, and rebooted the system. And the stupid annoying alarm started up as the system came up. This time, having *finally* figured out how to set up hot spares from the WebBIOS, I suspended

As mentioned last night, we''ve been reviewing a proposal for hot spare support in ZFS. Below you can find a current draft of the proposed interfaces. This has not yet been submitted for ARC review, but comments are welcome. Note that this does not include any enhanced FMA diagnosis to determine when a device is "faulted". This will come in a follow-on project, of which some

On 2017-02-15, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > On 2/14/2017 4:48 PM, tdukes at palmettoshopper.com wrote: > >> 3 - Can additional drive(s) be added later with a changein RAID level >> without current data loss? > > Only some systems support that sort of restriping, and its a dangerous > activity (if the power fails or system crashes midway through

Now that Solaris 10 11/06 is available, I wanted to post the complete list of ZFS features and bug fixes that were included in that release. I''m also including the necessary patches for anyone wanting to get all the ZFS features and fixes via patches (NOTE: later patch revision may already be available): Solaris 10 Update 3 (11/06) Patches sparc Patches * 118833-36 SunOS 5.10:

Speaking of ZFS, got a weird one: we were testing ZFS (ok, it was on Ubuntu, but that shouldn't make a difference, I would think). and I've got a zpool z2. I pulled one drive, to simulate a drive failure, and it rebuilt with the hot spare. Then I pushed the drive I'd pulled back in... and it does not look like I've got a hot spare. zpool status shows config: NAME STATE

ZFS fans, I''m preparing some analyses on RAS for large JBOD systems such as the Sun Fire X4500 (aka Thumper). Since there are zillions of possible permutations, I need to limit the analyses to some common or desirable scenarios. Naturally, I''d like your opinions. I''ve already got a few scenarios in analysis, and I don''t want to spoil the brain storming, so

Is there a way to update a CentOS 5.4 server to 5.6 (but not 5.7)? "yum update" takes me all the way up to 5.7. Best, -at

A little OT - but I've seen a few opinions voiced here by various admins and I'd like to benefit. Currently running a single combined server for multiple operations - fileserver, mailserver, webserver, virtual server, and whatever else pops up. Current incarnation of the machine, after the last rebuild, is an AMD Opteron 4180 with a Supermicro MB using ATI SB700 chipset - which

I've googled this question without a great deal of information. Monday I'm rebuilding a Linux server at work. Instead of purchasing 3 drives for this system I purchased 4 with intent to create a hot spare. Here is my usual setup which I'll do again but with a hot spare for each partion. Create /dev/md0 mount point /boot RAID1 3 drives with 1 hot spare Create two more raid setups

On Jul 1, 2019, at 7:56 AM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote: > > I've never used ZFS, as its Linux support has been historically poor. When was the last time you checked? The ZFS-on-Linux (ZoL) code has been stable for years. In recent months, the BSDs have rebased their offerings from Illumos to ZoL. The macOS port, called O3X, is also mostly based on ZoL. That leaves

I think this discussion probably came up here already but I couldn't find much on the archives. Would you able to comment or correct whatever might look wrong. What options people think is more adequate to use with Gluster in terms of RAID underneath and a good balance between cost, usable space and performance. I have thought about two main options with its Pros and Cons No RAID (individual

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 on last week >>>> has a *second* bad drive. Actually, I'm starting to wonder about >>>> that particulare hot-swap bay. >>>>