similar to: btrfs balance resume + raid5/6

Hi list, I am using kernel 3.9.0, btrfs-progs 0.20-rc1-253-g7854c8b. I have a three disk array of level single: # btrfs fi sh Label: none uuid: 2e905f8f-e525-4114-afa6-cce48f77b629 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 3.80TB devid 1 size 2.73TB used 2.25TB path /dev/sdd devid 2 size 2.73TB used 1.55TB path /dev/sdc devid 3 size 2.73TB used 0.00 path /dev/sdb

Hello, on a fs with 4 disks, raid 10 for data, one drive was failing and has been removed. After reboot and ''mount -o degraded...'', the fs looks full, even though before removal of the failed device it was almost 80% free. root@fs0:~# df -h /mnt/b Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sde 11T 2.5T 41M 100% /mnt/b root@fs0:~# btrfs fi df /mnt/b Data,

Hello! I''m using ArchLinux with kernel Linux horus 3.10.5-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT. Mounting and unmounting takes a long time: # time mount -v /mnt/Archiv mount: /dev/sde1 mounted on /mnt/Archiv. mount -v /mnt/Archiv 0,00s user 0,16s system 1% cpu 9,493 total # sync && time umount -v /mnt/Archiv umount: /mnt/Archiv (/dev/sdd1) unmounted umount -v /mnt/Archiv 0,00s user

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

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'm thinking of changing raid 1 to raid 5 (phisical --> in bios, now i've got 2 disks in raid1, i want to add 3rd disk). Will centos work correctly? cheers Mariusz -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Hello all, I have yesterday after some typos, sent my ext3 RAID5 array to the void... I want to recreate it now, but I read on http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Disk_Optimization that you can optimize the filesystem on top of the RAID. Will this wiki article be exactly the same for XFS? Is it worth the trouble to also create an LVM volume on the RAID array? Regards, Coert

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/